i    '■•■• 


£5 

03 
Q_ 

_ro 

/? 

1c 

< 

^^. 

IE 

1 

^T          Ha 

D_ 

W 

*£>     m 

O 

to 

$ 

"s      g 

(0 

1 

c 

^.        o 

bfl 

~T 

•25             ^ 

< 

§ 

i^      8 

~a3 

ftT 

& 

E 

^ 
.«-j 

O                M 

Rj 

<: 

^          pc; 

CO 

& 

i 

<* 

5^4 

"O 

=g 

1 

CD 

c 

£ 

£ 

<L> 

tf> 

CL 

^ 

^ 

Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/criticalexpositiOOsa 


CRITICAL  EXPOSITION 


BAPTISM; 


EMBRACING   THE 


MOSAIC  BAPTISMS;  JEWISH  TRADITIONARY  BAPTISMS;  JOHN'S 
BAPTISM,  AND  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM: 


CLIARLY    ESTABLISHING    THE    SCRIPTURAL   AUTHORITY    OF 

AFFUSION  AND   SPRINKLING, 

AND  OF 
INFANT    BAPTISM. 

BY  LEICESTER  A.'SAWYER,  A.  M. 

President  of  Central  College,  0. 


Published  by  Henry  VV.  Derby  &   Co. 
CINCINNATI,  O. 

AND 

D.  Appleton,  &  Co., 
NEW   YORK. 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  1844,  by  Leicester  A. 
Sawyer,  in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  of  Ohio. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I.  pag i 

Mosaic  Baptisms .. . .     9 

CHAPTER   II. 
Jewish  Traditionary  Baptisms 27 

CHAPTER  III. 
John's  Baptism 38 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Christian  Baptism 47 

CHAPTER  V. 
Mode  of  Christian  Baptism — Immersion  and  Pouring 59 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Mode  of  Christian  Baptism — Affusion  and  Sprinkling 78 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Subjects  of  Christian  Baptism 97 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Church-membership  of  Children 107 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Analogy  of  Christian  Baptism  to  Circumcision 128 

CHAPTER  X. 
Perpetuity  of  the  Abfahamic  Covenant 135 

CHAPTER    XI. 
Designating  the  subjects  of  Christian  Baptism  by   general 
terms 144 

CHAPTER  XII. 
The  absence  of  any  exclusion  of  infants  from   Christian 
Baptism , 150 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER    XIII.  page. 

Provision  for  the  early  conversion  of  children 152 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
Testimony  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers 155 

CHAPTER  XV. 
The  blessings  of  God  on  Infant  Baptism 162 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
Conclusion  in  favor  of  the  Baptism  of  Infants 164 

CHAPTER  XVII. 
Duties  of  the  Church  to  Infant  Members 169 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Miscellaneous  topics  relating  to  Baptism 176 


PREFACE 


1.  The  present  work  is  designed  to  contain  a 
complete  and  thorough  exposition  of  baptism. 

Many  partial  expositions  of  this  ordinance  arc  al- 
ready before  the  public,  and  some  of  them  of  con- 
siderable merit.  But  none  have  received  that  degree 
of  favor  which  is  necessary,  in  order  to  their  becom- 
ing generally  read;  and  none  are  generally  convin- 
cing. 

Believing  that  the  scripture  doctrines  respecting 
Christian  baptism,  can  be  so  expounded  as  to  secure 
for  them  the  general  adoption  of  mankind,  and  thus 
put  an  end  to  rational  controversy  in  regard  to  them ; 
the  author  of  the  following  work,  has  undertaken  to 
contribute  something  towards  the  attainment  of  this 
result.  How  far  he  has  succeeded,  remains  to  be 
determined.  He  indulges  the  hope  that  his  effort 
will  so  far  receive  the  approbation  of  the  great  head 
of  the  church,  and  be  so  far  in  agreement  with  the 
designs  and  purposes  of  God,  as  to  be  made  useful. 

2.  Infant  baptism  is  intimately  connected  with 
family  religion.  Most  families  are  so  imperfectly  in- 
formed in  regard  to  its  authority  and  design,  that 
something  is  imperiously  demanded  for  general  cir- 
culation with  respect  to  that  branch  of  the  subject. 

The  position  which  baptism  occupies,  as  the  sacra- 
mental seal  of  covenant  relations  subsisting  between 


6  PREFACE. 

God  and  man,  and  the  unhappy  diversities  of  opin- 
ion, among  Christians,  in  regard  to  it,  are  additional 
reasons  for  the  general  and  thorough  investigation  of 
the  subject,  both  by  the  ministry  and  membership  of 
the  church  of  Christ. 

3.  Baptism  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  branch- 
es of  Polemic  Theology. 

Polemic  Theology  is  discarded  by  many.  But 
when  we  consider  the  apostolic  injunction,  to  contend 
earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints; 
and  the  obligation  both  to  observe  and  maintain  the 
institutions  of  Chris  tin  their  purity,  we  are  constrain- 
ed to  be  polemical.  If  the  doctrines  of  Christ  met 
with  no  opposition,  Polemical  Theology  would  not 
be  necessary.  But  to  cease  contending  for  the  faith, 
while  that  faith  is  violently  assailed,  is  the  part  of 
cowardice  and  treachery,-  and  is  a  base  abandonment 
of  the  essential  principles  of  Christianity. 

It  becomes  us  not  only  to  defend  the  institutions 
of  Christ  and  to  prevent  their  being  broken  down 
by  assailants,  but  also  to  support  them  by  sound  and 
convincing  argument,  to  such  a  degree  as  will  carry 
conviction  to  every  unbiassed  mind.  This  has  been 
earnestly  attempted  in  the  present  work. 

4.  The  scripture  doctrines,  respecting  the  mode 
and  subjects  of  Christian  baptism,  must  be  settled, 
if  settled  at  all,  by  argument.  The  opinions  of  men, 
unsupported  by  evidence,  are  of  no  weight  whatever 
in  the  legitimate  establishment  of  them. 

Neither  can  these  doctrines  be  safely  determined 
from  the  English  bible,  considered  independently  of 
the  inspired  original.  The  English  bible  is  not  the 
inspired  word  of  God;  and  has  not,  and  cannot  have 
the  authority  which  belongs  to  the  inspired  original. 
The  English  bible  is  not  a  safe  guide  on  subjects  im- 


PRE1A.   I  7 

perfectly  understood  by  the  translators.  Translators 
cannot  give  a  version  of  unquestionable  authority, 
even  when  they  understand,  perfectly,  the  subject 
treated  of.  Still  less  can  they  do  this,  where  they 
do  not  perfectly  understand  the  subject.  If  a  scho- 
lar translates  according  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge, 
his  version  will  be  conformable  to  that  knowledge, 
but  will  in  no  case  exceed  it. 

The  ultimate  standards  of  appeal,  on  all  contro- 
verted subjects  in  Christian  theology,  are  the  origi- 
nal scriptures,  the  only  inspired  word  of  God,  and 
the  only  unerring  and  perfect  rule  of  Christian 
faith.  The  best  translations,  possible,  are  imperfect 
and  may  mislead  us.  The  opinions  of  the  best  and 
most  learned  men  may  be  erroneous,  and  are,  there- 
fore, not  to  be  implicitly  trusted.  But  God's  inspir- 
ed word  is  entitled  to  our  unhesitating  confidence. 
It  camiot  be  wrong.  It  cannot  mislead  us,  if  proper- 
ly interpreted. 

In  the  present  work,  the  original  word  of  God  is 
constantly  referred  to;  and  in  cases  where  the  com- 
mon version  is  supposed  to  be  objectionable,  other 
translations  are  adopted  and  supported  by  arguments 
capable  of  being  appreciated  by  all  intelligent  read- 
ers. 

The  leading  arguments  contained  in  the  following 
work  were  first  published  by  the  author  in  two  pam- 
phlets, one  on  the  Mode  and  the  other  on  the  Sub- 
jects of  Baptism,  in  1838.  In  the  present  work, 
those  arguments  are  more  fully  expanded,  and  the 
main  conclusions  have  been  strengthened  by  several 
additional  arguments. 


A 

CRITICAL    EXPOSITION 

OF 

BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  I. 

MOSAIC   BAPTISMS. 
Origin  of  Baptism. 

§  1.  The  eailiest  baptisms  of  which  we  have  any 
particular  account,  are  those  instituted  by  Moses. 
Whether  the  institution  of  baptism  had  its  origin  in 
the  time  of  Moses,  or  whether  it  came  down  with 
the  system  of  sacrifices  from  the  earlier  patriarchs 
and  from  the  commencement  of  time,  we  are  not 
informed  in  the  scriptures,  and  cannot  decide  from 
uninspired  testimony.  There  is  a  tradition  among 
the  Jews,  that  the  origin  of  baptism  was  previous  to 
the  time  of  Moses,  and  that  Moses  incorporated  it, 
as  he  did  the  other  religious  rites  of  his  time,  in  the 
Jewish  discipline,  without  originating  it.  Though 
this  is  incapable  of  proof,  there  is  no  good  reason  for 
supposing  the  contrary.  It  is,  therefore,  not  improb- 
able, that  the  institution  of  baptism  is  as  old  as  that 
2 


10  MOSAIC    BAPTISMS. 

of  sacrifices,  and  that  both  had  their  origin  in  the 
express  appointments  of  God,  and  in  the  time  of 
Adam. 


Primitive  title  of  the  Mosaic  Baptisms. 

§2.  The  Mosaic  baptisms  are  described  among 
the  Mosaic  institutions,  under  the  title  of  purifica- 
tions. The  name  baptism  was  not  applied  to  denote 
them  in  the  Old  Testament,  because  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  written  in  Hebrew,  and  baptism  is  a  word 
of  Greek  derivation.  The  Greek  language  did  not 
begin  to  be  used  by  the  Israelites  till  several  centu- 
ries after  the  time  of  Moses.  The  books  of  Moses 
were  compiled  1451  years  before  Christ.  The 
Septuagint,  the  earliest  Greek  translation  of  the 
Scriptures,  was  not  completed  till  about  285  B.  C, 
after  a  lapse  of  1166  years  from  the  time  of  Moses. 
The  translation  of  the  Septuagint  was  executed  by 
different  hands,  and  the  different  parts  of  it  with  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  fidelity  and  ability.  The  Penta- 
teuch was  the  first  part  of  the  Septuagint  translated. 
It  was  required  to  be  translated  first,  in  consequence 
of  the  prominent  position  which  the  reading  of  it 
occupied  in  the  synagogue  worship.  The  terms 
adopted  to  denote  the  different  Mosaic  rites  in  the 
translation  of  the  Pentateuch,  would  naturally  be 
adopted,  unless  found  objectionable,  by  the  transla- 
tors of  other  parts  of  the  sacred  volume. 

In  the  Pentateuch,  the  Mosaic  rites  of  cleansing 
are  denominated  purifications,  not  baptisms.  The 
same  modes  of  expression  are  continued  throughout 
the  old  Testament,  and  occur  occasionally  in  the 
New. 


MOSAIC    BAPTISMS.  11 

PROOF  THAT   TIIE   MOSAIC    PURIFICATIONS   WERE  BAP- 
TISMS. 

First  argument  from  the  Apocrypha. 

$3.  In  Ecclesiasticus  34:  25,  Greek  Siracides, 
31:  30,  the  word  baptize  is  applied  to  denote  one  of 
the  principal  Mosaic  purifications.  Literally  transla- 
ted, the  passage  reads  thus : k<  He  that  is  baptized  from 
a  dead  body  and  toucheth  it  again,  what  profit  will 
he  derive  from  his  washing?" 

Ecclesiasticus  is  one  of  the  apocryphal  books.  It 
is  one  of  the  finest  uninspired  Jewish  literary  pro- 
ductions extant  in  the  Greek  language,  and  has  been 
reckoned,  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  belonging  to 
the  sacred  canon. 

Being  baptized  from  a  dead  body  is  the  same  as 
being  purified  by  baptism  from  the  defilement  con- 
tracted by  touching  a  dead  body.  The  baptism  re- 
ferred to  was,  evidently,  the  Mosaic  purification  from 
defilement,  contracted  by  touching  the  dead.  The 
passage,  therefore,  shows,  that  the  Mosaic  purifica- 
tion referred  to,  was  a  baptism  according  to  the 
usage  of  the  Jews  in  those  times. 


Second  argument  from  the  Apocrypha. 

*>4-  In  Judith  12:  7,  we  are  told,  that  Judith 
abode  in  the  camp  of  the  enemy  three  days,  "  and 
went  out  in  the  night  to  the  valley  of  Bethulia  and 
baptized  herself  in  the  camp  at  a  fountain  of  water.*' 
This  baptism  was  connected  with  prayer,  Judith  11 : 
17.  "Thy  servant  is  religious,  and  serveth  the  God 
of  Heaven  day  and  night.     Now,  therefore,  my  Lord, 


12  MOSAIC    BAPTISMS. 

I  will  remain  with  thee,  and  thy  servant  will  go  out 
by  night  to  the  valley,  and  I  will  pray  to  God." 

Judith  is  described  as  an  eminent  Jewish  saint  and 
heroine.  Her  baptism  was  a  religious  rite,  which 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  commanded  in  the 
Mosaic  ritual,  but  belonged  to  the  traditionary  obser- 
vances of  later  times.  These  traditionary  observan- 
ces were  analogous  to  the  divinely  appointed  ones. 
The  divinely  appointed  baptisms  were  the  purifica- 
tion from  defilement  contracted  by  touching  a  dead 
body,  and  the  other  analagous  purifications. — §  3. 

The  baptism  of  Judith  was,  undoubtedly,  a  cere- 
monial purification  by  means  of  water;  probably,  an 
uncommanded  ceremony.  The  mode  of  its  admin- 
istration is  not  defined,  but  the  circumstances  of  the 
case  clearly  show,  that  it  could  not  have  been  by  im- 
mersion. 

1.  It  was  performed  by  a  woman  on  herself. 

2.  It  was  performed  statedly  in  the  night,  and 
every  night,  in  connexion  with  other  religious  exer- 
cises. 

3.  It  was  performed  at  a  fountain. 

4.  It  was  performed  at  a  fountain  within  a  camp, 
with  a  hostile  army  around  her,  by  whose  general 
she  was  at  the  time  entertained. 

The  book  of  Judith  purports  to  describe  transac- 
tions and  events  which  took  place  during  the  reign 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon.  It  is  a  reli- 
gious historical  novel,  of  which  Judith  is  the  heroine, 
and  was,  probably,  founded  on  facts,  as  such  novels 
generally  are.  It  constituted  a  part  of  Jewish  Greek 
literature  previous  to  the  time  of  the  apostles,  and 
illustrates  the  manner  in  which  Greek  words  were 
applied  to  denote  Jewish  institutions  and  usages. 

It  shows  clearly,  by  the  case  of  Judith,  that  cere- 


M- VIC    BAPTISMS.  13 

monia]  cleansings,  by  means  of  water,  wore  denom- 
inated baptisms,  as  well  as  purifications.  Judith's 
baptism  could  have  been  nothing  else  than  a  ceremo- 
nial religious  cleansing  or  purification,  and  was 
doubtless  analogous  to  those  instituted  by  Moses. 


First  argument  from  the  New  Testament. 

§5.  The  application  of  the  term  baptisms  as  an 
appropriate  title  of  the  Mosaic  purifications,  is  also 
evinced  by  Hebrews  9:  9,  10.  This  passage,  pro- 
perly translated,  reads  as  follows:  "Which  [taberna- 
cle] has  been  a  type  to  the  present  time,  in  which 
both  oblations  and  sacrifices  are  offered,  that  cannot 
make  him  who  performs  the  service  perfect  in  res- 
pect to  the  conscience,  being  imposed  with  [absti- 
nence from  certain]  meats  and  drinks  and  various 
baptisms,  ordinances  pertaining  to  the  body,  only  till 
the  time  of  reformation.'" 

The  original  word  which  I  have  translated  baptisms 
in  the  above  passage,  is  baptismois,  and  ought,  un- 
doubtedly, to  be  rendered  baptisms,  not  washings,  as 
in  our  common  bible.  In  the  above  passage,  various 
baptisms  are  associated  with  oblations,  sacrifices  and 
distinctions  of  clean  and  unclean  meats,  as  rites  of 
the  Mosaic  dispensation.  What  these  baptisms  were, 
is  not  stated  in  this  connexion  any  further  than  this 
is  indicated  by  the  name  baptisms.  This  word  is 
used  as  a  title  of  certain  Mosaic  rites,  in  a  manner 
which  clearly  shows  that  it  was  a  common  and  well 
understood  name  of  those  rites. 

The  Mosaic  rites,  as  enumerated  and  described  in 
the  books  of  Moses,  consist  of  circumcision,  sacrifi- 


14  MOSAIC    BAPTISMS. 

ces,  abstinence  from  certain  meats  and  drinks,  as 
ceremonially  unclean,  and  purifications. 

In  Hebrews  9 :  9,  10,  these  are  referred  to  under 
the  titles  of  sacrifices,  abstinence  from  meats  and 
drinks,  and  baptisms.  Which  class  of  the  Mosaic 
rites  were  baptisms?  Which  would  this  word  most 
naturally  denote?  Evidently  purifications.  Can  it 
possibly  be  applied  to  any  other?  By  no  means. 
Sacrifices  were  not  baptisms..  Circumcision  was 
not  a  baptism.  The  Mosaic  baptisms  then,  must 
have  been  the  Mosaic  purifications. 

We  are  shut  up  to  the  necessity,  therefore,  of  in- 
terpreting baptisms  in  Heb.  9:  10,  as  a  title  of  the 
Mosaic  purifications;  and  divers  or  various  baptisms 
must  be  considered  as  descriptive  of  the  various  and 
diversified  purifications  enjoined  by  Moses. 


Second  argument  from  the  Neiv  Testament. 

$6.  That  the  word  baptism  was  applied  by  the 
Jews  to  denote  purifications,  is  also  evident  from 
John  3 :  25,  26.  "  Then  there  arose  a  disputation  of 
the  disciples  Tof  John,  with  a  Jew,  concerning  purifi- 
cation; and  they  came  to  John  and  said  to  him,  Rab- 
bi, he  that  was  with  thee  beyond  the  Jordan,  to  whom 
thou  bearest  witness,  behold  the  same  baptizeth.  and 
all  come  to  him.'" 

The  word  translated  purification  in  the  above,  is 
the  same  that  is  used  in  2  Pet.  1 :  9,  which  properly 
translated,  reads  as  follows:  "But  he  who  is  destitute 
of  these  [virtues]  is  blind,  having  a  forgetfulness  of 
his  purification  from  his  former  sins." 

The  disputation  of  John's  disciples  with  a  Jew, 
related  to  purification.     They  refer  this  matter  to 


MOSAIC    BAPTISMS.  15 

John,  by  stating  that  Jesus  Christ  had  instituted  and 
was  administering,  what  appeared  to  them,  a  rival 
baptism  to  his.  The  matter  in  dispute,  therefore, 
was  the  baptism  of  Christ,  or  christian  baptism. 
The  dispute  concerning  purification,  was  a  dispute 
concerning  christian  baptism,  or,  perhaps,  concerning 
the  relation  of  Christ's  baptism  to  that  of  John,  and 
the  comparative  dignity  and  authority  of  the  two  in- 
stitutions. 

If  Christ's  baptism  was  a  purification,  then  the 
divinely  appointed  purifications  of  the  Jews  were 
doubtless  baptisms. 


Conclusion. 

$7.  The  argument  contained  in  paragraphs  3, 
4,  5  and  6,  does  not  lead  to  a  mere  probability,  or 
conjectural  conclusion.  It  places  the  matter  in  ques- 
tion, beyond  reasonable  doubt.  It  proves  that  the 
Mosaic  purifications  were  baptisms,  and  that  they 
were  so  understood  and  so  denominated  by  the  Jews, 
both  before  the  time  of  Christ,  and  during  the  period 
of  his  public  ministry.  The  conclusion  is  not  forc- 
ed, nor  far  fetched.  It  is  easy  and  natural.  It  is 
inevitable.  We  cannot,  legitimately,  get  away  from 
it  if  we  would.  We  cannot  infer  the  contrary.  We 
cannot  conclude  that  the  evidence  is  indecisive,  and 
that  it  leaves  the  matter  only  probable,  and  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree  uncertain.  This  is  not  the 
fact.  It  does  not  leave  the  matter,  in  any  degree, 
uncertain.  The  only  way  to  avoid  coming  to  the 
conclusion  is,  not  duly  to  consider  and  estimate  the 
evidence  adduced  in  the  case. 

Men  may  conclude  against  any  degree  of  evidence 


16  MOSAIC    BAPTISMS. 

when  they  have  refused  to  admit  and  consider  it. 
But  evidence  admitted  and  considered,  produces  its 
effect  with  certainty  and  uniformity.  Hence,  truth 
has  this  peculiarity,  that  it  bears  consideration,  and 
becomes  clearer  the  more  accurately  and  thoroughly 
it  is  investigated  and  considered.  Much  that  does 
not  appear  to  superficial  inquirers,  or  that  shines  out 
obscurely  and  imperfectly  to  their  view,  developes 
itself  to  the  patient,  studious  and  considerate,  with 
a  force  of  evidence  that  is  irresistible. 

First  and  superficial  impressions  are  often  false. 
They  ought  never  to  be  trusted.  Those  views  which 
bear  the  ordeal  of  impartial  and  extended  investiga- 
tions, and  those  alone,  are  entitled  to  our  confidence. 
They  are  entitled  to  it  equally,  whether  they  occur 
readily  or  tardily;  whether  they  are  our  first  views, 
and  those  most  naturally  suggested  by  a  superficial 
consideration  of  the  subjects  to  which  they  relate,  or 
whether  they  are  the  opposite  of  what  merely  super- 
ficial consideration  would  suggest. 


SPECIFICATION    OF   THE   PRINCIPAL   MOSAIC   BAPTISMS. 

§8.    1.  Baptism  of  sacred  objects. 

2.  Baptism  of  the  Levites. 

3.  Baptism  of  the  Priests. 

4.  Baptism  of  persons  and  tilings,  on  account  of 
ceremonial  defilement  from  touching  the  dead. 

5.  Baptism  of  recovered  lepers. 

G.  Baptism  of  the  entire  nation  of  the  Israelites, 
previous  to  the  giving  of  the  law. 


H08AIC    BAPTHHB.  17 

1.      Baptism  of  .sacred  objects. 

$9.  Lev.  16:  14,  19.  "And  he  shall  take  of  the 
blood  of  the  bullock  and  sprinkle  it  with  his  finger 
upon  the  mercy  seal  eastward,  and  before  the  m<  rcy 
seat  shall  he  sprinkle  of  the  blood  with  his  finger 
seven  times.  Then  shall  he  kill  the  goat  of  the  sin 
offering  that  is  for  the  people,  and  bring  his  blood 
within  the  vail,  and  do  with  that  blood  as  he  did  with 
the  blood  of  the  bullock,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  the 
mercy  seat  and  before  the  mercy  seat.  And  he  shall 
make  an  atonement  for  the  holy  place,  because  of  the 
uncleanness  of  the  children  of  Israel  and  because  of 
their  transgressions  in  all  their  sins.  And  so  shall 
he  do  for  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  that  re- 
maincth  among  them  in  the  midst  of  their  unclean- 
ness. And  he  shall  go  out  to  the  altar  that  is  before 
the  Lord  and  make  an  atonement  for  it,  and  shall 
take  of  the  blood  of  the  bullock  and  the  blood  of  the 
goat  and  put  it  on  the  horns  of  the  altar  round  about, 
he  shall  sprinkle  of  the  blood  upon  it  with  his  finger 
seven  times,  and  cleanse  it  and  hallow  it  from  the 
uncleanness  of  the  children  of  Israel." 

This  passage  records  the  purification  of  the  mercy 
seat  and  the  altar.  It  was  performed,  not  with  water, 
but  with  the  blood  of  victims  offered  in  sacrifice,  and 
was  repeated  annually  on  one  of  the  great  annual 
festivals  of  the  Israelites. 

The  object  of  these  rites  was  the  removal  of  cer- 
emonial uncleanness.  The  effect  of  them  was,  to 
cleanse  and  hallow  the  objects  to  which  they  were 
applied.  They  therefore  agreed  with  the  other  puri- 
fications in  design  and  signification,  and  were  purifi- 
cations. 

They  were  administered  by  sprinkling  blood  seven 


18  MOSAIC   BAPTISMS. 

times  successively  with  the  finger  on  the  object  to  be 
purified. 

The  Mosaic  purifications  having  been  proved  to 
have  been  baptisms,  these  were  baptisms.  The  sig- 
nificancy  of  these  baptisms  depended  on  the  typical 
character  of  the  victims  whose  blood  was  used. 
These  victims  were  types  of  Christ,  and  their  blood 
types  of  his  blood.  They  were  offered  to  God  in 
sacrifice  as  types  of  Christ,  suffering  a  violent  death 
to  make  atonement  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  Hence 
the  application  of  their  blood  represented  the  appli- 
cation of  the  blood  of  Christ  for  the  removal  of 
human  guilt.  The  application  of  that  blood  to 
things,  as  well  as  to  persons,  represented  the  participa- 
tion of  things  in  the  effects  and  consequences  of 
human  guilt,  and  their  exemption  from  the  same 
through  the  atonement.  It  was,  therefore,  a  symbol 
of  legal  justification. 


2.     Baptism  of  the  Levites. 

§10.  Num.  8:  6,  7.  "Take  the  Levites  from 
among  the  children  of  Israel  and  cleanse  them. 
And  thus  shalt  thou  do  to  them  to  cleanse  them: 
Sprinkle  water  of  purification  upon  them,  and  let 
them  shave  all  their  flesh,  and  let  them  wash  their 
clothes,  and  so  make  themselves  clean." 

This  purification  was  a  ceremonial  cleansing  of 
persons  in  order  to  qualify  them  for  religious  services. 
It  was  performed  by  sprinkling  with  prepared  or  lus- 
tral  water,  and  was  accompanied  with  other  symboli- 
cal ceremonies.  Its  significancy  depended  upon  the 
mixture  of  the  ashes  of  a  victim  offered  in  sacrifice 
to  God  in  the  water  made  use  of.     This  victim  w  \s 


MOSAIC    BAPTISMS.  19 

I  type  of  Christ  suffering  for  the  sins  of  men.  The 
application  of  water  prepared  with  its  ashes  repre- 
sented the  application  of  the  atonement  made  by 
Christ  to  the  subject  of  this  rite.  It  was,  therefore,  a 
symbol  of  legal  justification. 


3.     Baptism  of  the  Priests. 

$  11.  Ex.  29:  3,  21.  "And  Aaron  and  his  sons 
thou  shalt  bring  to  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation,  and  thou  shalt  wash  them  with  water. 
And  thou  shalt  take  of  the  blood  that  is  upon  the  al- 
tar, and  of  the  anointing  oil,  and  sprinkle  [them] 
upon  Aaron  and  upon  his  garments,  and  upon  his 
sons,  and  upon  the  garments  of  his  sons  with  him; 
and  he  shall  be  hallowed,  and  his  garments,  and  his 
sons  and  his  sons'  garments  with  him." 

The  effect  of  the  washing  and  sprinkling  was,  that 
Aaron  and  his  sons  and  their  garments,  were  cleans- 
ed. This  cleansing  was  of  course  ceremonial,  and 
the  demand  for  it  did  not  depend  on  any  want  of 
physical  cleanliness  on  the  part  of  the  subjects  on 
whom  it  was  performed. 

The  washing  was  such  as  could  be  performed  at 
the  tabernacle  door.  Whether  it  embraced  any  thing 
more  than  the  customary  washing  of  the  hands,  face 
and  feet,  we  are  not  informed.  It  is  not  said  that 
the  under  garments  of  the  persons  receiving  this 
baptism  were  changed.  The  sacred  vestments,  con- 
sisting of  the  coat,  the  robe  of  the  ephod,  the  ephed, 
and  the  breast  plate,  were  put  on  for  the  first  time 
after  the  baptismal  or  ceremonial  washing,  and  before 
the  sprinkling  with  blood  from  the  altar. 


20  MOSAIC    BAPTISMS. 

The  purification,  however,  depended  essentially 
upon  the  sprinkling;  and  this  had  respect  to  the  sa- 
cred vestments  of  the  priests,  as  well  as  to  their  per- 
sons. 

It  does  not  appear  that  this  purification  involved 
any  immersion;  and  in  the  absence  of  any  thing  in- 
dicating an  immersion,  an  ordinary  washing  is  all  that 
can  be  legitimately  inferred. 


4.     Baptism  of  persons  and  tilings,  on  account  of 
ceremonial  defilement  from  touching  the  dead. 

§12.  Num.  19:  17,20.  "For  an  unclean  per- 
son, they  shall  take  of  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer 
of  purification  for  sin,  and  running  water  shall  be  put 
thereto  in  a  vessel.  And  a  clean  person  shall  take 
hysop,  and  dip  it  in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it  upon 
the  tent,  and  upon  all  the  vessels,  and  upon  the  per- 
sons that  were  there,  and  upon  him  that  touched  a 
bone,  or  one  slain,  or  one  dead,  or  a  grave.  And  the 
clean  person  shall  sprinkle  upon  the  unclean,  on  the 
third  day  and  on  the  seventh  day ;  and  on  the  seventh 
day  he  shall  purify  himself,  and  wash  his  clothes,  and 
bathe  himself  with  water,  and  shall  be  clean  at  even- 
ing." 

This  purification  depended  upon  a  law  declaring 
that  both  persons  and  things  became  ceremonially 
unclean  by  coming  in  contact  with  a  dead  body;  and 
in  some  cases  by  proximity  without  contact.  The 
defilement  continued  seven  days;  when,  by  Divinely 
appointed  rites,  it.  was  removed.  If  not  removed  by 
such  rites,  it  continued  indefinitely. 

The  purification  was  effected  by  Bprinkling  with 
lustra]  water  on   the  third   day,  and  again  on   the 


.MOSAIC    BAPTI8  21 

nth  day.  After  this,  in  the  case  of  poisons,  the 
subject  was  required  to  wash  himself  and  his  clothes 
in  water,  whereupon  lie  became  clean  at  evening. 

This  purification  is  referred  to  directly  as  a  baptism 
in  the  Apocrypha,  in  Ecclcsiasticus  34:  25.  That 
reference  has  been  considered  in  §3.  It  is,  however, 
but  one  of  the  various  Mosaic  baptisms  mentioned 
in  Ilcb.  9:  10;  and  the  other  purifications,  estab- 
lished on  similar  principles,  and  administered  in  simi- 
lar modes,  must  be  concluded  to  constitute  the 
others.  If  this  purification  was  one  baptism,  the 
other  analogous  purifications  were  the  other  bap- 
tisms. 

The  defilement  from  which  this  baptism  was  a 
cleansing,  was  of  a  legal  and  symbolical  nature.  It 
was  created  by  law,  and  was  designed  to  represent 
sin.  Every  dead  body  was  a  symbol  of  sin;  and 
touching  it,  or  coming  into  proximity  to  it,  represent- 
ed becoming  defiled  with  sin  as  with  a  contagion. 
The  rite  by  which  this  symbolical  contagion  was  re- 
moved, was  a  baptism  or  purification,  and  was  per- 
formed mainly  by  sprinkling  the  person  or  thing  with 
lustral  water  duly  prepared  for  the  purpose.  In  the 
case  of  persons,  washing  by  the  individual  was  added 
as  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  ceremony.  The 
mode  of  this  washing  is  not  explicitly  defined.  Per- 
haps it  was  not  important. 

The  washing  is,  in  this  case,  as  in  that  of  the  other 
Mosaic  baptisms,  enjoined  by  a  Hebrew  word  which 
corresponds  well,  in  signification,  to  the  English 
word  wash.  It  is  applied  to  washing  the  face,  as  in 
the  case  of  Joseph,  Gen.  43:  31;  to  washing  the 
hands,  as  in  Ps.  26 :  6 ;  and  to  that  of  other  parts  of 
the  body. 


22  MOSAIC   BAPTISMS. 

This  word,  therefore,  does  not  require  immersion; 
neither  does  it  prescribe  the  mode  or  extent  of  the 
washing.  All  that  it  requires  is  a  washing  of  the 
individual  himself,  to  be  performed  by  himself.  The 
word  bathe,  made  use  of  to  express  this  washing,  in 
our  common  English  version,  is  to  be  understood  in 
the  same  sense  as  when  we  speak  of  bathing  the 
head  with  vinegar,  not  in  the  sense  of  going  into 
deep  water.  In  this  sense,  bathing  is  synonymous 
with  affusion;  in  the  other  and  more  common  sense, 
it  does  not  answer  to  the  original,  of  which  it  is  de- 
signed to  be  a  translation.  The  water  made  use  of 
in  this  baptism  was  running  water. 

It  appears  from  the  above  that  the  purification  from 
defilement,  contracted  by  touching  the  dead,  was  a 
highly  significant  and  impressive  ordinance,  and  well 
adapted  to  make  a  strong  and  solemn  impression  on 
a  reflective  mind.  It  was  not  a  merely  arbitrary  ap- 
pointment, adopted  to  accomplish  no  perceptible 
good,  but  a  symbolical  rite,  representing,  in  the  most 
impressive  manner,  the  defiling  and  contagious  na- 
ture of  sin,  and  the  removal  of  that  defilement  and 
contagion.  It  made  a  strong  appeal  to  the  faith  of 
the  ancient  saints,  and  tended  to  confirm  and  increase 
the  same. 

Lustral  Water. 

Lustral  water  was  a  mixture  prepared  to  be  used 
in  ceremonial  cleansing  or  purification.  It  consisted 
of  water  taken  from  a  stream,  impregnated  with  the 
ashes  of  a  heifer  killed  and  burnt  under  the  direction 
of  the  priest,  with  appropriate  attending  ceremonies. 
The  slaughter  and  burning  of  the  red  heifer  was  a 
kind  of  sacrifice  of  that  animal  for  the  purpose  of 


MOSAIC    8*1000.  gg 

obtaining  her  ashes  for  the   uses  here  referred  to. 

Tbeaahee  were  considered  as  possessing  die  es- 
sential virtues  of  a  sacrificial  death.  They  had  the 
power  of  expiating  and  removing  defilements  con- 
sidered as  symbols  of  sin.  In  the  purifications, 
therefore,  in  which  this  water  was  used,  there  was  an 
allusion,  not  only  to  the  nature  of  water  as  an  instru- 
ment of  purification,  but  to  Christ,  as  denoted  sym- 
bolically by  a  sacrificial  victim,  whose  ashes  were 
made  use  of  in  the  preparation  of  the  lustral  water. 

The  scriptural  account  of  the  preparation  of  lus- 
tral water  is  contained  in  Num.  19:  1-10. 


5.     Baptism  of  recovered  Lepers. 

§  13.  Lev.  14 :  7,  9.  "  And  he  (the  priest)  shall 
sprinkle  upon  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  from  the 
leprosy,  seven  times,  and  shall  pronounce  him  clean. 
And  he  that  is  to  be  cleansed  shall  wash  his  clothes 
and  shave  off  all  his  hair,  and  wash  himself  in  water 
that  he  may  be  clean.  After  that  shall  he  come  into 
the  camp,  and  shall  tarry  abroad  out  of  his  tent  seven 
days.  But  it  shall  be  on  the  seventh  day  that  he 
shall  shave  off  all  his  hair  from  his  head,  and  his 
beard,  and  his  eyebrows,  even  all  his  hair  he  shall 
shave  off;  and  he  shall  wash  his  clothes;  also,  he 
shall  wash  his  flesh  in  water  and  he  shall  be  clean." 

The  word  flesh  seems  to  be  here  used  in  the  sense 
of  body.  It  was  not  said  in  the  law  respecting  be- 
ing baptized  from  the  dead,  that  the  subject  should 
wash  his  body,  but  simply  that  he  should  wash ;  and 
the  word  "  himself"  is  supplied  in  the  translation  to 
distinguish  this  washing  more  clearly  from  that  of 
his  clothes,  mentioned  in  the  context.     But  in  the 


24  MOSAIC    BAPTISMS. 

case  of  the  recovered  leper,  the  subject's  body  is  to 
be  washed  at  the  conclusion  of  the  ceremony. 

In  this  case  as  in  the  former,  however,  sprinkling 
seven  times  with  lustral  water  on  two  different  occa- 
sions, is  an  essential  part  of  the  ceremony.  This 
was  done  once  on  the  first  day,  and  the  second  time 
on  the  seventh  day.  On  the  seventh  day  the  cleans- 
ing of  the  subject  was  completed. 

The  cleansing  of  the  recovered  leper  was  not  of  a 
remedial  nature.  It  was  not  designed  to  effect  his 
recovery,  and  had  no  adaptation  to  such  a  purpose. 
It  was  designed  only  to  remove  the  ceremonial  de- 
filement contracted  by  his  having  been  a  leper. 

The  leprosy  was  an  extremely  filthy  and  malig- 
nant disease ,-  and  persons  seldom  recovered  from  it. 
In  this  religious  purification,  it  was  made  a  symbol  of 
sin.  It  was  one  of  the  most  expressive  symbols  of 
sin  that  has  ever  yet  been  presented  to  the  human 
mind.  The  defilement  contracted  by  having  the 
leprosy,  was  a  symbol  of  the  defilement  or  guilt  con- 
tracted by  being  sinners ;  and  the  purification  from 
this  defilement  a  symbol  of  the  expiation  and  re- 
moval of  guilt.  The  mode  as  well  as  the  design  of 
this  purification,  bear  a  striking  analogy  to  those  of 
the  purification  from  defilement  contracted  by  touch- 
ing the  dead.  If  one  was  a  baptism,  the  other  must 
also  have  been  a  baptism,  for  they  are  both  substan- 
tially the  same  thing.  It  is  a  remarkable  peculiarity 
of  the  baptism  of  recovered  lepers  as  well  as  of  that 
from  the  dead,  that  the  water  made  use  of  was  run- 
ning water,  and  that  the  ceremony  was  necessarily 
performed  by  streams  where  such  water  could  be  ob- 
tained.    Lev.  14:  5,  6. 


JC    BAPTISMS.  25 


G.      The  baptism  of  the  entire  nation  of  the  Lsrad- 
itcs  prerious  to  the  giving  of  the  Law. 

1 14  fc$:  10,  14.  "And  the  Lord  said  to 
Moses,  £0  to  the  people  and  sanctify  them  to-day 
and  to-morrow,  and  let  them  wash  their  clothes.1' — 
"And  Moses  went  down  from  the  mount  to  the  peo- 
ple,  and  sanctified  the  people,  and  they  washed  their 
clothes.91 

The  purification  is  here  expressed  by  the  word 
sanctify.  The  sanctification  of  the  people  was  a 
ceremonial  one.  It  could  not  have  been  any  other. 
A  ceremonial  sanctification  is  but  another  name  for 
a  ceremonial  purification.  But  if  it  was  a  purifica- 
tion, it  was  a  baptism.  Because  the  Mosaic  purifica- 
tions have  been  proved  to  have  been  baptisms. 
Besides  it  agreed  with  the  other  Mosaic  baptisms  in 
representing  the  removal  of  guilt  under  the  title  of 
defilement. 

The  mode  of  its  performance  is  not  described; 
and  as  it  was  not  designed  to  be  repeated,  a  knowl- 
edge of  it  was  not  particularly  important  for  the  suc- 
cessors of  those  who  were  the  subjects  of  it,  neither 
is  it  necessary  for  us. 


The  general  nature  and  design  of  the  Mosaic  Bap- 
tisms. 

\  15.  From  the  foregoing  investigations,  die  na- 
ture of  the  Mosaic  baptisms  is  easily  inferred.  They 
were  all  ceremonial  purifications,  in  which  physical 
defilement  is  made»a  symbol  of  moral  and  legal  de- 
filement ;  and  the  removal  of  real  or  supposed  physi- 
3 


28  MOSAIC    BAPTISMS. 

cal  defilement  a  symbol  of  the  removal  of  moral 
defilement  and  legal  disabilities. 

Mankind  are,  by  nature,  sinners ;  and,  as  such,  both 
defiled  and  condemned. 

The  Mosaic  baptisms  represented,  by  striking  and 
impressive  imagery,  the  removal  both  of  this  defile- 
ment and  condemnation.  In  the  cases  of  the  de- 
filement from  the  dead,  and  from  leprosy,  the  symbols 
made  use  of  are  the  most  solemn  and  affecting  that 
can  well  be  conceived.  Sin  is  viewed  as  a  death, 
and  a  leprosy,  a  contagious  death  and  a  contagious 
leprosy.  The  person  affected  with  this  contagion  is 
excluded  from  all  communion  with  God,  and  with 
his  people,  until  it  is  removed.  Its  entire  removal 
occupies  a  period  of  seven  days,  requiring  two  seven 
fold  baptisms,  by  sprinkling,  together  with  appropriate 
sacrifices,  and  is  concluded  with  a  washing  of  him- 
self by  the  subject.  In  the  case  of  the  baptism 
from  leprosy,  the  sprinkling  was  with  the  blood  of  a 
victim  offered  in  sacrifice;  and  in  that  of  the  bap- 
tism from  the  dead,  with  lustral  water.  The  sprink- 
lings were  performed  in  the  case  of  the  baptism 
from  leprosy  by  the  priest;  in  that  of  the  baptism 
from  the  dead,  by  any  person  not  the  subject  of  cere- 
monial defilement.  This  arrangement,  by  which  any 
clean  person  was  authorized  to  baptize  from  the 
dead,  was  necessary,  on  account  of  the  frequency  of 
those  baptisms.  To  have  devolved  this  duty  upon 
the  priests  exclusively,  would  have  laid  a  burden 
both  upon  them  and  upon  the  people,  which  neither 
could  have  borne. 

It  appears,  on  the  whole,  that  the  Mosaic  purifica- 
tions were  not  that  unmeaning  and  insignificant 
tern  of  arbitrary  exactions  which  many  have  supposed 
them  to  be.      They  were  religious  rites  of  great 


JEWISH    TRADITIONARY    BAPTISMS.  27 

solemnity.  They  were  parts  of  a  system  of  spiritual 
worship,  and  were  themselves  as  spiritual  as  any  ex- 
ternal rights  can  possibly  be.  Christian  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper  are  not  superior  to  them  in  this 
respect.  These  Christian  ordinances  are  no  more 
spiritual  than  the  Mosaic  purifications  were. 


CHAPTER  II. 

JEWISH  TRADITIONARY  BAPTISMS. 

Specification  of  the  'principal  traditionally  Baptisms 
of  the  Jews. 

$16.  The  Jewish  traditionary  baptisms  were  of 
two  kinds. 

1.  Baptism  of  Proselytes  or  Proselyte  Baptism. 

2.  Domestic  Baptisms. 

Proselyte  baptism  was  administered  to  converts 
from  the  heathen,  on  their  admission  to  the  Jewish 
church;  in  the  case  of  male  subjects,  after  their  cir- 
cumcision, and  in  the  case  of  female  subjects  with- 
out any  previous  initiatory  rite.  It  was  administered 
also  to  the  children  of  proselytes  equally  with  cir- 
cumcision, and  extended  to  those  of  both  sexes. 

The  domestic  baptisms  of  the  Jews  comprehend 
those  which  were  performed  statedly  before  meals, 
together  with  the  baptism  of  things  from  the  market, 
and  the  occasional  baptism  of  articles  of  furniture^ 
&c. 


28  JEWISH    TRADITIONARY   BAPTISMS. 

PROSELYTE   BAPTISM. 

Origin  of  Proselyte  Baptism. 

\  17.  The  origin  of  Proselyte  baptism  is  involved 
in  obscurity.  Some  have  supposed  that  it  did  not 
prevail  till  after  the  Christian  era  had  commenced. 
The  more  general  and  more  probable  opinion  how- 
ever, is,  that  this  institution  had  its  origin  soon  after 
the  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylonian  captivi- 
ty. The  arguments  in  favor  of  this  opinion  are  the 
following : 

1.  This  custom  was  universal  among  the  Jews  a 
few  centuries  after  the  commencement  of  the  Chris- 
tian era,  accompanied  with  a  tradition  of  its  having 
been  handed  down  from  the  time  immediately  after 
the  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylonian  captivity. 
If  introduced  after  the  institution  of  Christian  bap- 
tism, it  must  have  been  in  imitation  of  that  ordi- 
nance, or  at  least  with  a  knowledge,  on  the  part  of 
the  Jews,  of  the  existence  of  that  ordinance  in  the 
Christian  church.  Either  of  these  suppositions  is 
highly  improbable.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  the 
Jews  would  borrow  this  ordinance  from  the  Christian 
church;  for  that  church  was  the  object  of  their  con- 
tinual and  violent  hatred  and  opposition.  It  cannot, 
for  the  same  reason,  be  reasonably  supposed  that 
they  would  adopt  it  from  any  quarter,  while  they 
knew  of  its  previous  adoption  and  use  in  the  Chris- 
tian church.  Their  hatred  to  the  Christian  church 
would  naturally  prevent  their  making  any  changes  in 
their  established  rites,  by  which  they  would  seem  to 
conform  to  Christian  usages.  It  would,  therefore, 
have  prevented  a  change  of  this  kind.     The  sup- 


JEWISH    TRADITIONARY    RAPT]  90 

position,  therefore,  that  Proselyte  baptism  was  adopt- 
ed by  the  Jews  after  die  establishment  of  <  Jhristianhy, 
is  both  unsustaincd  by  evidence,  and  is  highly  im- 
probable. 

2.  If  Proselyte  baptism  was  introduced  among 
the  Jews  since  the  commencement  of  the  Christian 
era,  there  would  be  likely  to  be  some  traces  of  its 
origin  in  modem  Jewish  history  and  literature;  but 
there  is  none.  This  circumstance  increases  the 
legitimate  presumption,  that  the  origin  of  the  Prose- 
lyte baptism  was  previous  to  the  Christian  era. 

3.  Epictetus,  born  90,  A.  D.,  whose  sayings  were 
collected  and  published  by  his  pupil  Arrian,  denomi- 
nates proselytes  to  the  Jewish  faith  and  worship, 
baptized  persons.  Arrian  Diss.  Epict.  2,  9.  This 
denomination  clearly  implies  that  baptism  was  to 
proselytes  a  visible  sign  of  membership  in  the  Jewish 
church,  and  that  being  baptized  was  equivalent 
to  being  made  proselytes.  It  may  refer  to  prose- 
lytes as  the  subjects  of  the  numerous  Mosaic,  and 
of  the  other  traditionary  baptisms  of  the  Jews;  but 
it  seems  most  naturally  to  be  accounted  for  on  the 
supposition  of  the  practice  of  Proselyte  baptism  at 
that  time.  On  this  supposition,  the  baptized,  in 
reference  to  proselytes,  would  be  a  designation  per- 
fectly analogous  to  the  circumcised,  so  often  used  in 
the  scriptures  to  designate  the  Israelites. 

4.  In  the  Ethiopic  version  of  the  scriptures,  sup- 
posed to  have  been  made  as  early  as  the  third  or 
fourth  century  of  the  Christian  era,  the  phrase,  to 
make  one  proselyte,  Matt.  23:  15,  is  translated  to 
baptize  one  stranger.  Therefore,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  translator,  for  the  Jews  to  make  one  proselyte 
was  the  same  thing  as  to  baptize  one  stranger  or  Gen- 
tile.    This  clearly  shows  that  proselytes  were  made 


30  JEWISH   TRADITIONARY   BAPTISMS. 

by  baptism,  and  consequently,  that  Proselyte  baptism 
was  in  use  at  that  period. 

5.  The  introduction  of  John's  and  Christ's  bap- 
tisms, with  so  little  explanation  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  initiatory  rites  into  the  respective  societies 
established  by  John  and  Christ,  is  decidedly  in  favor 
of  the  opinion,  that  Proselyte  baptism  had  been  pre- 
viously instituted.  On  the  supposition  that  Proselyte 
baptism  had  been  instituted  and  handed  down  from 
the  times  of  the  later  prophets,  the  uses  of  John's 
and  Christ's  baptisms  as  initiatory  rites  into  new  re- 
ligious communities,  would  require  no  explanation. 
They  would  be  in  conformity  with  an  established 
and  well  known  usage.  On  the  contrary  hypothesis, 
this  application  of  baptism  must  have  been  a  novelty 
to  the  Jews,  and  would  evidently  require  explana- 
tion in  a  narrative  like  the  gospels,  addressed  pri- 
marily to  persons  only  acquainted  with  Jewish  prin- 
ciples and  usages.  But  no  explanation  is  given. 
The  whole  subject  is  referred  to  and  disposed  of  by 
the  Evangelists  as  if  it  needed  no  explanation,  but 
would  be  understood  of  course. 

This  circumstance  is  strongly  in  favor  of  the  opin- 
ion that  Proselyte  baptism  had  been  previously 
established,  perhaps  with  the  sanction  of  the  later 
prophets;  and  that  the  baptisms  of  John  and  Christ 
were  but  modifications  of  the  same. 

The  disciples  of  John  were  proselytes  to  John's 
faith  and  practice.  The  disciples  of  Christ  were 
proselytes  to  the  faith  and  practice  inculcated  by 
Christ.  To  those  already  acquainted  with  Proselyte 
baptism,  the  baptisms  of  proselytes  to  John  and 
Christ  would  be  easily  understood,  and  would  excite 
little  surprise. 


Jewish   tkaihtionakv  HAVKBOB,  31 

Tlic  little  explanation,  therefore,  which  was  judg- 
ed necessary  on  these  subjects  by  tlic  Evangelists, 
is  an  evidence  <>t*  the  previous  institution  and  preva- 
lence of  Proselyte  baptism  among  tlic  Jews. 

Objection. 

It  has  sometimes  been  objected  to  the  opinion  in 
favor  of  the  early  origin  of  Proselyte  baptism,  that 
this  rite  is  not  mentioned  by  Josephus,  when  he 
apeaks  of  the  circumcision  of  the  Idumeans  in  the 
time  of  Hyrcanus. 

His  language  is,  that  the  Idumeans  were  allowed 
their  choice,  either  to  leave  their  country  or  to  be 
circumcised  and  conform  to  the  laws  of  the  Jews. 
The  omission  of  baptism  in  this  expression  does  not 
imply  that  it  was  not  required.  Circumcision  was 
the  leading  initiatory  rite.  It  was  the  first  rite  per- 
formed on  the  candidate,  and  was  the  rite  to  which 
foreigners  would  be  most  likely  to  object.  In  pro- 
posing to  the  Idumeans,  therefore,  to  be  circumcised, 
and  to  conform  to  the  laws  of  the  Jews,  Hyrcanus 
proposes  to  them  to  submit  to  all  the  established 
rites  of  Judaism.  Baptism  was  comprehended  in 
the  general  requirementjo  conform  to  the  laws  of 
the  Jews. 

It  was  not  necessary  that  it  should  be  explicitly 
mentioned  in  the  proposal  of  Hyrcanus,  or  in  the 
narrative  of  Josephus,  in  order  to  its  being  under- 
stood, on  the  supposition  of  its  general  prevalence  at 
that  time.  The  neglect  of  Josephus,  therefore,  to 
mention  baptism  in  connection  with  circumcision,  in 
the  account  which  he  gives  of  the  proposal  to  the 
Idumeans  to  become  proselytes  to  Judaism,  and  of 


32  JEWISH  TRADITIONARY   BAPTISMS. 

their  accession  to  the  same,  proves  nothing  against 
the  prevalence  of  Proselyte  baptism  at  that  time. 

The  foregoing  argument  in  favor  of  the  early  ori- 
gin of  Proselyte  baptism,  is  strengthened  by  the  con- 
sideration that  Proselyte  baptism  was  a  kindred 
institution  to  the  other  Jewish  baptisms,  and  seems 
naturally  to  have  grown  out  of  them.  In  the  esti- 
mate of  the  Jewish  law,  the  entire  heathen  world 
was  in  a  state  of  ceremonial  defilement.  The  Jews, 
when  defiled,  were  purified  by  baptisms.  What  could 
be  more  natural  than  to  resort  to  the  same  means  for 
the  cleansing  of  the  defiled  Gentiles? 

The  principle  of  the  Jewish  defilements  and  puri- 
fications, applied  to  proselytes,  seems  to  require  that 
they  should  be  baptized  previous  to  participating  in 
the  fellowship  of  the  baptized  Jews.  Their  circum- 
cision removed  a  local  defilement — their  baptism  re- 
moved a  general  defilement.  If  Proselyte  baptism 
grew  legitimately  out  of  the  Mosaic  baptisms,  it  was 
virtually  a  Divine  institution,  and  of  equal  authority 
with  the  other  baptisms  out  of  which  it  grew.  How 
the  defiled  heathen  could  be  received  to  communion 
in  the  Jewish  church,  without  baptism,  consistently 
with  the  divinely  established  principles  respecting 
ceremonial  defilements  anjd  purifications,  it  is  not 
easy  to  see. 

Order  of  initiation  into  the  Jewish  Church. 

The  order  of  the  initiation  of  proselytes  wras  as 
follows : 

The  candidate  was  first  instructed  in  the  princi- 
ples and  usages  of  Judaism,  and  gave  his  assent  to 
the  same.  Their  male  subjects  were  circumcised. 
After  circumcision,  they  were  baptized,  and  received 


JEWISH!    TRADITIONARY    KAPTIS.MS.  33 

to  full  communion  in  the  Jewish  church.     Femi 
wen-   received  by  baptism  only.     The   children  of 
proselytes  were  circumcised  and  baptized  at  the  same 

times  with   their  parents.      This  baptism   v. 

iiher  in  tlie  case  of  children  or  adults. 

Mode  of  Proselyte  Baptism. 

The  primitive  mode  of  Proselyte  baptism  is  not 
known.  That  which  has  prevailed  as  far  back  as  the 
history  of  this  rite  can  be  distinctly  traced,  is  by  im- 
mersion in  the  presence  of  three  judges. 

Design  of  Proselyte  Baptism. 

Proselyte  baptism,  like  other  Jewish  purifications, 
was  a  symbolical  rite,  indicative  of  the  removal  of 
guilt,  and  of  the  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  sin. 
The  Jewish  Rabbins  have  for  ages  attached  to  it  a 
saving  efficacy.  They  teach  that  the  baptism  of 
proselytes  is  the  occasion  of  their  receiving  new 
souls,  or  experiencing  a  literal  change  of  soul.  This 
error  is  analogous  to  that  of  making  Christian  bap- 
tism the  occasion  of  regeneration,  of  which  it  is  only 
the  symbol  and  seal. 

Proselyte  baptism  is  supposed  to  have  been  intro- 
duced for  the  following  purposes : 

1.  To  distinguish  proselytes,  by  a  religious  initia- 
tory rite,  from  circumcised  Gentiles;  such  as  the  Ish- 
maelites. 

2.  To  serve  as  an  initiatory  rite,  to  seal  the  intro- 
duction of  females  to  the  Jewish  church. 

As  circumcision  was  applicable  only  to  males,  it 
must  have  seemed  highly  desirable  to  accord  to 
woman  some  analogous  seal,  by  which  their  interest 


34  JEWISH   TRADITIONARY   BAPTISMS. 

in  the  grace  of  God,  and  in  the  blessings  of  his 
covenant  with  men,  should  be  distinctly  marked. 

Proselyte  baptism  answered  this  purpose. 

3.  To  remove  that  general  defilement  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  principles  of  the  Mosaic  laws  respect- 
ing ceremonial  defilement  and  cleansing,  pertained 
to  the  whole  heathen  world. 


DOMESTIC    BAPTISMS. 

$18.  These  are  referred  to  in  Mark  7:  3,  4. 
This  passage  has  greatly  perplexed  commentators 
and  translators.  Properly  translated,  it  reads  as  fol- 
lows : 

"For  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews  eat  not,  ex- 
cept i  they  wash  their  hands  with  the  fist  closed. 
And  [things]  from  the  market  they  do  not  eat,  unless 
they  baptize  [them].  And  there  are  many  other 
[customs]  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  [as] 
baptisms  of  cups  and  pitchers  and  brazen  vessels 
and  couches." 

The  first  difficulty  in  translating  this  passage  is 
with  the  word  translated  oft  in  the  common  version, 
and  fist  closed,  in  the  above.  The  signification  oft 
or  often,  is  derived  from  the  vulgate,  a  latin  transla- 
tion, and  the  one  commonly  used  by  the  Papal 
church.  The  Greek  word,  however,  to  which  this 
corresponds,  does  not  have  this  signification.  Its 
usual  and  proper  signification  is  that  which  I  have 
given.  There  is  no  reason  to  depart  from  it,  provi- 
did  the  context  will  bear  this  sense. 

Washing  the  hands  with  the  fist  closed,  would  be 
very  different  from  an  ordinary  and  natural  mode  of 
washing  them,  and  perhaps  may  have  been  adopted 


JEWISH    TRADITIONARY     BAPTIMM.  35 

for  this  reason.  A  religious  washing  ought  to  differ 
from  an  ordinary  one,  even  if  performed  in  the  same 
genera]  mode.  Besides,  this  washing,  like  the  other 
ceremonial  washings,  was  not  performed  for  purposes 
of  cleanliness,  but  solely  for  the  purpose  of  ceremo- 
nial purification.  It  may  have  been  performed, 
either  by  dipping  the  fists  in  water  or  by  having  water 
poured  on  them. 

The  fourth  verse  admits  of  being  construed  in  two 
different  ways;  in  both  of  which,  an  ellipsis  is  to  be 
supplied.  Translating  it  without  altering  the  arrange- 
ment or  supplying  the  ellipsis,  it  reads  thus:  "And 
from  the  market,  unless  they  baptize,  they  eat  not." 
Some  supply  before  from,  returning,  and  take  baptize 
in  its  middle  or  reflexive  sense  as  terminating  on  the 
subject,  so  as  to  make  it  read  thus:  "And  returning 
from  the  market,  unless  they  baptize  themselves, 
they  do  not  eat." 

Our  objection  to  this  rendering  is,  that  it  makes 
the  whole  expression  superfluous  and  contradictory 
of  the  assertion  contained  in  the  verse  before  it. 

The  evangelist  had  said  in  the  preceding  verse, 
mat  the  Jews  washed  their  hands  as  a  ceremonial 
purification  before  all  meals.  Such  a  washing  was 
a  baptism ;  for  it  was  a  religious  purification  of  the 
same  kind  as  purification  from  defilement  contracted 
by  touching  the  dead.  The  design  of  both  was  to 
denote  spiritual  cleansing.  Both  removed  ceremo- 
nial defilement.  Both  were  administered,  fully  or 
in  part,  by  means  of  water,  considered  as  a  medium 
of  physical  cleansing. 

Purification  from  defilement,  contracted  by  touch- 
ing the  dead,  was  called,  being  baptized,  in  one  of 
the  aphocryphal  books  of  the  Septuagint,  making 
that  kind  of  religious  rites  baptisms.     The  religious 


36  JEWISH   TRADITIONARY   BAPTISMS. 

washing  of  the  hands,  according  to  the  tradition  of 
Elders,  referred  to  Mark  7 :  2,  3,  and  Matt.  15 :  2, 
was  a  rite  of  that  kind,  therefore  it  was  a  baptism. 

According  to  the  interpretation  now  under  consid- 
eration, the  Evangelist  tells  us,  in  the  first  place,  that 
the  Jews  practiced  baptism  before  all  their  meals, 
and  then  in  the  next  verse,  that  they  did  it  before 
some  of  their  meals,  that  is,  after  returning  from  the 
market. 

Not  only  is  the  second  declaration  superfluous,  it 
is  contradictory  of  the  other.  For  it  implies  that 
baptism  was  not  practiced  generally  before  all  meals, 
but  only  on  occasions  of  returning  from  the  market. 

The  version  which  I  have  adopted,  supplies  things 
and  them,  instead  of  returning;  and  takes  the  verb 
baptize  in  its  active  sense,  a  sense  which  is  common 
to  the  middle  form  of  Greek  verbs,  and  which  is  al- 
ways given  them  by  intelligent  translators,  when  the 
connection  requires  it. 

Eating  from  the  market,  is  a  natural  expression  to 
denote  eating  things  from  the  market. 

A  similar  mode  of  expression  is  used  in  Mark  7: 
28,  which  is  rendered  in  the  common  bible ;  "  cat  of 
the  children's  crumbs." 

1  Cor.  9:  13  and  14,  contain  similar  ellipses, 
where  it  is  said;  "Do  ye  not  know,  that  they  who 
minister  about  holy  things,  live  of  the  temple ;  (that 
is  of  the  things  obtained  from  the  temple ;)  and  they 
who  wait  on  the  altar,  are  partakers  with  the  altar? 
Even  so  hath  the  Lord  ordained,  that  they  Who 
preach  the  gospel,  should  live  of  the  gospel  j  that  is, 
of  the  proceeds  of  the  gospel." 

The  version  which  I  have  adopted,  is  in  perfect 
agreement  with  the  orginal  Greek  which  it  repre- 


JBWX3B     Ti:\I»ITIO\AHY'    HAI'TISMS.  37 

scnts,  and  suits  perfectly  the  context  and  the  nature 
of  the  subject  treated  of. 

Food  from  the  market  is  in  every  point  of  view  as 
appropriate  a  subject  of  ceremonial  defilement  and 
cleansing,  as  dishes  and  couches;  and  those  who  bap- 
tize the  latter,  would  be  compelled,  in  order  to  be 
consistent  with  themselves,  to  baptize  the  former. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  I  conclude,  with  Kuinocl 
and  other  distinguished  interpreters,  that  the  first 
part  of  Mark  7:  4,  relates  to  the  baptism  of  provi- 
sions obtained  from  the  market,  and  not  to  the  bap- 
tism of  persons  returning  from  it. 

The  latter  part  of  Mark  7:  4,  mentions  explicitly 
the  baptism  of  cups  and  pitchers,  and  brazen  vessels, 
and  couches.  The  original  word  in  this  passage, 
translated  washing  in  the  common  bible,  denotes 
baptisms,  not  secular  washing,  and  ought  to  be  trans- 
lated accordingly. 

In  the  entire  passage,  therefore,  we  have  three 
different  Jewish  baptisms : 

1.  The  baptism  of  persons  before  meals,  perform- 
ed by  washing  the  hands  with  the  fists  closed. 

2.  The  baptism  of  provisions  obtained  from  the 
market,  the  mode  of  which  is  not  described.  This 
must  have  been,  however,  by  sprinkling,  as  many 
kinds  of  provisions  would  not  admit  of  being  either 
washed  or  dipped. 

3.  The  baptism  of  cups,  pitchers,  brazen  vessels 
and  couches. 

The  mode  of  baptism  in  respect  to  those  articles 
of  furniture,  is  not  described.  Sprinkling  is  the 
most  probable,  and  is  the  only  one  that  was  practica- 
ble in  respect  to  couches  and  articles  of  that  kind. 


38  John's  baptism. 

CHAPTER  III. 

JOHN'S   BAPTISM. 
Nature  of  John's  Baptism. 

§  19.  The  baptism  of  John  began  and  ended  with 
that  reformer.  That  it  was  not  the  same  as  Christian 
baptism,  is  proved  by  Acts  19:  2-5,  where  disciples 
who  had  been  baptized  with  John's  baptism,  after- 
wards received  Christian  baptism  from  the  hands  of 
the  apostles.  John's  baptism,  therefore,  is  an  insti- 
tution by  itself,  different  from  the  Mosaic  baptisms, 
different  from  the  traditional  baptisms  practiced  by 
the  Jews  of  his  time,  and  different  from  Christian 
baptism. 

Considered  as  a  baptism,  it  was  analagous  to  the 
other  baptisms  which  have  been  described.  It  was, 
like  them,  a  ceremonial  purification,  and  symbol  of 
moral  cleansing.  It  differed  from  them,  however,  in 
being  a  rite  of  initiation  into  the  society  of  John's 
professed  disciples.  Hence  the  expression,  John  4 : 
1.  "The  Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  made 
and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John." 

The  making  and  baptizing  of  disciples  by  Jesus 
and  John  are  here  contrasted.  Jesus  made  disciples 
by  converting  them  to  his  doctrines,  and  then  he  ad- 
mitted them  to  the  society  of  his  professed  followers, 
by  causing  them  to  receive  baptism.  John  made 
disciples  by  converting  them  to  his  doctrines,  and 
then  admitted  them  to  the  society  of  his  professed 
followers,  by  a  similar  rite. 


john's  BAFtm.  .30 

As  Cfaristiao  baptism  was  a  rite  of  initiation  into 
the  Christian  church,  John's  baptism  was  a  rite  of  in- 
itiation into  John's  church,  or  John's  religious  soci- 
ety. 

John  did  not  found  the  Christian  church,  and  did 
not,  by  his  baptism,  admit  persons  into  it.  He  did, 
however,  found  a  religious  society  within  the  bosom 
of  the  corrupt  Jewish  church  and  admitted  persons 
to  it  by  baptism.  John's  baptism,  therefore,  diners 
from  all  other  baptisms  in  being  a  rite  of  initiation 
into  the  religious  order  or  society  of  which  he  was 
the  founder. 

This  society  was  not  destined  to  be  permanent. 
It  was  soon  merged  in  the  Christian  church,  and  its 
initiatory  rite  discontinued.  But  for  a  time  it  exert- 
ed an  important  influence  in  favor  of  piety  and  good 
morals,  and  contributed  greatly  to  prepare  the  way 
for  the  successful  establishment  of  Christianity. 
Every  true  disciple  of  John,  was  prepared  to  become 
an  immediate  disciple  of  Christ,  as  soon  as  an  oppor- 
tunity should  offer. 

In  being  made  a  rite  of  initiation  into  the  society 
of  John's  disciples,  his  baptism  became  of  a  sacra- 
mental character.  As  a  seal  of  discipleship  to  John, 
it  sealed  the  obligations  of  the  subjects  to  perform 
all  the  duties  of  disciples.  It  also  sealed  their  faith 
in  the  doctrines  which  John  taught  and  inculcated. 
Hence  it  is  called  "  the  baptism  of  repentance  for 
the  remission  of  sins,"  Mark  1:4;  and  hence  the  ex- 
pression, "I  baptize  you  with  water  to  repentance," 
Matt.  3:  11. 

The  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  involves  the  recognition  of  the  doctrine,  that  re- 
pentance is  necessary  in  order  to  our  obtaining  the 
remission  of  sins.     It  also  implies,  that  the  baptism 


40  JOIO*S    BAPTISM. 

so  denominated,  is  a  seal  of  our  faith  in  this  doctrine. 
Baptizing  persons  to  repentance,  involves  a  recogni- 
tion of  the  obligation  to  repent,  and  an  engagement 
on  the  part  of  the  subjects  to  discharge  this  obliga- 
tion. To  baptize  one  to  repentance,  is  to  take  his 
confessed  obligation  to  repent,  and  seal  it  with  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  In  the  case  of  adult  persons, 
it  implies  still  more.  It  implies  a  profession  of 
actual  repentance  on  the  part  of  the  subjects,  and  is 
the  seal  of  that  profession. 


Subjects  of  John's  Baptism. 

§20.  The  subjects  of  John's  baptism  are  describ- 
ed in  the  following  general  terms;  Matt.  3:  5,  5, 
"  Then  went  out  to  him,  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea  and 
all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized 
at  Jordan  by  him,  confessing  their  sins.'" 

These  general  terms  require  some  limitation. 
The  natural  limitations  are  made  in  the  following 
paraphrase :  The  Jews  in  Jerusalem  and  throughout 
all  Judea  and  in  all  the  region  about  Jordan,  gener- 
ally believed  in  John,  became  his  disciples,  adopted 
his  principles,  and  were  admitted  to  the  society  of 
his  professed  followers,  by  baptism.  This  embraces 
men  and  women,  though  neither  are  distinctly  speci- 
fied in  the  above  description.  Whether  it  embraced 
the  children  of  adult  converts  or  not,  is  a  question 
of  some  considerable  interest,  and  one  in  repect  to 
which,  different  opinions  are  entertained. 

Children  are  no  where  in  the  New  Testament  ex- 
plicitly stated  to  have  been  included  among  die  sub- 
jects of  John's  baptism,  nor  are  they  any  where 
explicitly  stated  to  have  been  excluded  from  this 


JOHN"?   BAPT1BM.  11 

rite.  Tiic  subject  is  only  adverted  to,  in  the  moel 
ral  terms,  in  the  inspired  narrative.  The  only 
tieations  are  of  Pharisees  and  Sadducces,  Matt. 
3:  7,  Jesus,  3:  13-15,  the  multitude,  Luke  3:  7, 
the  people,  8:  10,  the  publicans,  3:  12,  and  the  sol- 
diers, 3:  14. 

Some  deny  that  the  children  of  adult,  disciples 
were  included  among  the  subjects  of  John's  baptism, 
on  the  following  grounds: 

1.  That  they  are  not  distinctly  specified  as  having 
been  the  subjects  of  his  baptism,  in  the  inspired  nar- 
rative. 

2.  That  they  could  not  exercise  the  repentance, 
and  faith  which  he  enjoined. 

Both  these  premises  are  true.  But  the  conclusion 
does  not  legitimately  follow. 

John  was  a  divinely  appointed  herald,  calling  upon 
all  the  tme  servants  of  God  to  separate  themselves 
from  the  rest  of  the  nation,  by  joining  his  religious 
association.  His  organization  proceeded  on  the 
principle,  that  the  nation,  as  such,  was  fundamentally 
corrupt,  and  liable  to  be  cast  off  from  the  favor  of 
God  for  its  corruption. 

He  raises  the  standard  of  true  piety  and  calls  upon 
all  to  crowd  around  it,  and  form  a  true  church  in  the 
midst  of  one  that  had  become  partially  corrupt.  He 
does  not  teach  a  religion,  fundamentally  new.  He 
is  only  an  expounder  of  the  old  religion.  He  aims 
to  bring  the  people  back  to  the  spirit  and  letter  of 
their  long  established  institutions.  What  Abraham 
and  the  Patriarchs  were,  in  respect  to  a  due  obser- 
vance of  religious  and  moral  duties,  he  aims  to  make 
them. 

All  who  respond  to  his  call  and  obey  his  injunc- 
tions, he  seals  by  baptism,  as  belonging  to  the  reform- 
4 


42  John's  baptism. 

ed  branch  of  the  Jewish  church.  His  society  was 
not  a  new  church  organized  on  new  principles.  It 
was  only  a  reformed  branch  of  the  Jewish  church. 

Now,  in  the  absence  of  any  explicit  and  scriptu- 
ral statements  on  this  subject,  what  is  the  fair  pre- 
sumption in  respect  to  children?  According  to  the 
principles  of  the  Jewish  economy,  what  were  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  children?  Evidently,  the 
fair  presumption  is,  that  children,  included  with  their 
parents  as  the  subjects  of  religious  purification  gen- 
erally, were  also  included  as  subjects  of  this  partic- 
ular purification.  Having  been  from  the  time  of 
Abraham,  the  subjects  of  the  initiatory  rite  and  seal 
of  faith  and  holiness,  they  must  be  entitled  to  share, 
with  their  parents,  this  additional  seal,  unless  the 
contrary  is  explicitly  asserted.  The  contrary  is  not 
asserted,  neither  is  it  implied  by  any  thing  that  ap- 
pears in  the  inspired  narrative.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that  children  must  have  been  included  with  their 
converted  parents  as  subjects  of  John's  baptism,  on 
the  same  principle,  in  accordance  with  which,  they 
wrere  made  the  subjects  of  circumcision,  and  of  the 
other  Jewish  baptisms. 


Mode  of  John's  Baptism. 

$21.  The  mode  of  John's  baptism  is  no  where 
in  the  scriptures  particularly  described.  The  word 
baptism  does  not  restrict  this  rite  to  any  particu- 
lar mode,  because  this  word  denoted  the  Mosaic 
purifications,  which  were  administered  in  different 
modes,  but  chiefly  by  sprinkling  and  affusion,  or 
washing.  No  other  terms  are  applied  to  describe 
John's  baptism,  which  designate  the  mode  of  its  per- 


43 

formance.  The  common  English  Bible  represents  it 
as  having  been  administered  in  the  river  Jordan. 
Matt.  3 :  6,  and  Mark  1 :  5.  The  preposition  which 
in  these  passages,  is  translated  in,  means  cither  in 
or  at.  In  many  situations,  it  signifies  in,  in  the  sense 
of  within,  and  usually  lias  this  signification  before 
the  names  of  cities,  countries,  edifices,  &,c.  In 
many  situations,  also,  it  has  the  less  definite  and 
wider  signification  of  at,  on,  by,  near,  &c,  as  in 
Luke  13 :  4,  where  the  tower  in  Siloam  means  the 
tower  at  or  near  the  fountain  of  Siloam,  not  in  it. 
The  same  preposition  that  expresses,  in  the  above 
passages,  the  relation  of  John's  baptism  to  the  river 
Jordan,  expresses,  in  Luke  13 :  4,  the  relation  of  a 
tower  to  the  fountain  of  Siloam.  The  tower,  how- 
ever, was  not  in  the  fountain  but  near  it.  The  bap- 
tism of  John  may  then  not  have  been  administered 
in  the  river  Jordan  but  near  it. 

The  passages,  therefore,  where  in  the  common 
English  Bible,  John's  baptism  is  said  to  have  been 
administered  in  the  river  Jordan,  are  incorrectly 
translated,  and  afford  no  proof  that  his  baptism  was 
administered  in  the  river;  the  same  word,  in  the 
original,  expressing  both  the  relations  of  in  and  at, 
or  near. 

It  is  impossible  to  determine,  from  the  word  used 
to  express  the  relation  of  the  river  to  John's  bap- 
tism, whether  it  was  performed  in  the  river  or  only 
by  the  river.  This  word,  therefore,  proves  nothing 
in  respect  to  the  mode  of  his  baptism. 

The  common  Englfsh  Bible  informs  us,  Matt.  3 : 
16,  that,  "Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized,  went  up 
straightway  out  of  the  water." 

The  preposition  here  translated  "out  of,"  usually 
means  from  or  away  from,  and  is  correctly  translated 


44  john's  baptism. 

as  expressing  that  relation,  Matt.  3 :  7,  in  the  sen- 
tence, "Who  hath  warned  you  to  fee  from  the  wrath 
to  come  ?"  The  question  is  not  "  Who  hath  warned 
you  to  flee*out  of  the  wrath  to  come,"  but  "  Who 
hath  warned  you  to  flee  from,  or  away  from,  the  wrath 
to  come."     So  in  numerous  other  passages. 

This  passage  merely  teaches  that  Jesus,  after  his 
baptism,  went  up  from  the  water,  not  that  he  went 
up  out  of  it.  It  therefore  proves  nothing  in  respect 
to  the  mode  of  John's  baptism,  except  that  in  the 
case  of  Jesus  it  was  administered  at  the  river  Jor- 
dan; and,  by  implication,  that  it  was  administered 
with  river  water. 

It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  all  John's  bap- 
tisms were  administered  even  at  the  river  Jordan; 
for  we  are  told,  John  3 :  23,  that,  at  a  certain  time, 
"  John  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to  Salem,  because 
there  were  many  waters  there."  The  expression 
"many  waters,"  is  the  literal  rendering  of  the  origi- 
nal.    It  means  many  streams  or  fountains. 

The  reason  assigned  for  John's  baptizing  in  Enon, 
does  not  indicate  any  particular  mode  of  baptism. 
It  cannot  reasonably  be  supposed  that  many  streams 
were  more  necessary  for  one  mode  of  baptism  than 
for  another.  One  stream  was  sufficient  for  any  mode 
of  performing  this  rite.  The  immense  crowds,  how- 
ever, who  attended  on  the  preaching  of  John,  coming 
in  great  numbers  from  the  distance  of  fifty  or  eighty 
miles,  and  the  same  individuals  naturally  remaining 
for  a  considerable  time,  required  large  accommoda- 
tions. A  main  article  in  respect  to  their  supply,  was 
water  for  themselves  and  for  their  animals.  This, 
in  large  abundance  was  indispensably  necessary ;  and 
to  meet  this  exigency,  we  have  reason  to  believe 
Enon  was  chosen,  for  a  time,  as  the  place  of  John's 


John's  baptism.  15 

labors.     Its  many  streams  made  it  a  suitable  p] 
in  consequence,  not  of  any  particular  mode  of  bap- 
tism which  John  practiced,  but  in  consequence  of  its 
betti  r  adaptation  to  accommodate  properly  the  vast 
multitudes  who  attended  on  his  ministry. 

John,  during  the  short  period  of  his  public  minis- 
try, baptized,  according  to  the  Evangelists,  almost  the 
entire  Jewish  nation,  which  consisted  of  several  mil- 
lions. Matt.  3:5;  Mark  1 :  5.  He  did  this  with  his , 
own  hands,  not  by  the  ministry  of  his  disciples;  for 
it  does  not  appear  that  his  disciples  baptized  at  all. 

This  fact  indicates  a  mode  of  baptism  that  could 
be  administered  without  great  fatigue,  or  exposure 
of  health  to  injury  from  long  standing  in  the  water. 
It  is  not  the  plan  of  Divine  Providence  to  perform 
miracles  for  the  preservation  of  men;  the  object  of 
miracles  is  to  serve  as  grounds  of  faith.  We  have 
no  intimation  that  John  was  preserved  from  injury, 
and  sustained,  under  the  fatigue  of  a  laborious  mode 
of  administering  baptism,  by  a  continual  miracle. 
Therefore,  we  are  not  authorized  to  believe  that  he 
had  any  miraculous  support  in  this  part  of  his  minis- 
try. We  are,  on  the  other  hand,  expressly  informed 
that  John  wrought  no  miracles.     John  10:  41. 

Whatever,  therefore,  was  the  mode  of  his  baptism, 
it  does  not  seem  possible  that  it  could  have  been  im- 
mersion. No  human  constitution  could  have  en- 
dured the  labor  and  exposure  of  immersing  the 
millions  that  appear  to  have  been  baptized  by  him, 
during  the  short  period  of  his  public  ministry. 

Authority  of  John's  Baptism. 

$22.  John's  baptism  was  of  divine  authority.  In 
this  respect,  it  stands  on  a  level  with  the  Mosaic  bap- 


46  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

tisms,  and  far  above  the  traditionary  baptisms  of  the 
Jews.  His  baptism  received  the  approbation  of  the 
Saviour,  and  of  the  Evangelists.  This  could  not 
have  been  the  case  unless  it  had  been  of  divine  au- 
thority. In  being  of  divine  authority,  it  was  con- 
formable to  a  divine  law  requiring  it.  That  law, 
however,  is  not  recorded  in  the  scriptures.  Its  ex- 
istence is  a  matter  of  inference ;  but  though  its  ex- 
istence is  a  matter  of  inference,  it  is  not  a  matter  of 
doubt,  or  of  uncertainty.  Nothing  can  be  more  cer- 
tain. 

John  himself  refers  to  the  divine  authority  of  his 
baptism,  in  the  expression  recorded,  John  1 :  33, 
"  He  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the  same 
said  to  me,  upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  de- 
scending and  remaining  on  him,  this  is  he,  who  bap- 
tizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 

We  infer  from  this  passage,  that  God  sent  John  to 
baptize;  consequently,  that  his  baptism  was  of  divine 
authority,  an  inference  in  agreement  with  that  be- 
fore made  from  other  premises. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

Historical   account  of  the  Origin  of  Christian 
Baptism. 

§  23.     Christian  baptism  is  the  baptism  instituted 
by  Christ  and  administered  to  his  disciples.     The 


CHRISTIAN    BAFTIS.M.  17 

scriptures  contain  no  record  of  its  primitive  institu- 
tion, or  of  the  explanations  and  instructions  of  the 
Saviour  respecting  it,  either  at  the  time  of  its  insti- 
tution, or  on  any  subsequent  occasion. 

The  earliest  notices  that  we  have  of  it,  are  in  the 
Gospel  of  John,  3:  22,20,  and  4:  1,2.  "After  these 
tilings  came  Jesus,  and  his  disciples,  into  the  land  of 
Judea,  and  there  he  abode  with  them  and  baptized. 
And  they  (John's  disciples,)  came  to  John  and  said, 
Rabbi,  he  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to 
whom  thou  barest  witness,  behold  the  same  baptizeth, 
and  all  come  to  him.1'  "  When,  therefore,  the  Lord 
knew  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  disciples 
than  John,  (though  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but 
his  disciples,)  he  left  Judea  and  departed  again  to 
Gallilee." 

These  are  all  the  scriptural  instructions  we  have 
on  Christian  baptism,  till  after  the  resurrection  of  the 
Saviour.  They  are  all  confined  to  the  Gospel  of 
John.  Matthew  and  Mark  take  no  notice  of  Chris- 
tian baptism  till  they  received  the  commission  to 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  after  the  resur- 
rection. They  then  notice  it  only  as  making  a  part 
of  that  commission,  without  any  explanation,  further 
than  that  persons  are  to  be  baptized  to  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Luke  takes  no  notice  of  it  at  all. 

The  passages  referred  to  in  John,  show  clearly 
that  Christian  baptism  was  instituted  by  Christ  at  the 
commencement  of  his  ministry,  not  after  its  close, 
as  is  erroneously  supposed  by  many. 

After  the  crucifixion,  Christian  baptism  is  men- 
tioned by  Mark  and  Luke,  in  the  following  passages: 
Mark  16:  16.  "And  he  said  to  them, -go  ye  into  all 
the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature. 


48  CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM 

He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved, 
but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned.'" 

Matt.  28:  19,  20.  "Go  ye,  therefore,  and  make 
disciples  of  all  nations,  baptizing  them  to  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatso- 
ever I  have  commanded  you ;  and  lo  I  am  with  you 
always,  to  the.  end  of  the  world." 

These  two  passages  contain  similar  injunctions 
respecting  preaching  the  gospel,  and  administering 
Christian  baptism  to  all  men.  That  recorded  in 
Mark  is  supposed  to  have  been  delivered  on  the  even- 
ing of  the  day  of  the  resurrection.  John  20 :  19-23, 
and  Luke  24 :  36-47,  relate  to  the  same  occasion. 

That  recorded  in  Matthew  was  addressed  to  the 
disciples,  by  the  Saviour,  on  the  occasion  of  his  ap- 
pearing to  them,  agreeably  to  previous  appointment, 
on  a  mountain  in  Gallilee.  This  appearance  occur- 
red on  the  third  Sabbath  after  the  resurrection,  and  is 
recorded  only  by  Matthew. 

The  next  notice  of  Christian  baptism  is  in  Acts 
2:  38,  39,  41.  "Then  Peter  said  to  them,  repent 
and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  for  the  remission 
of  sins,  and  ye .  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  For  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  chil- 
dren, and  to  all  that  are  afar  off;  even  as  many  as 
the  Lord  our  God  shall  call.  Then  they  that  gladly 
received  his  word  were  baptized ;  and  the  same  day 
there  were  added  to  them  about  three  thousand 
souls." 

In  the  subsequent  parts  of  the  New  Testament 
history,  and  in  the  Epistles,  Christian  baptism  is  fre- 
quently mentioned  and  alluded  to,  but  in  no  case- 
particularly  described. 


CHRISTIAN    BAPTI8J  \$ 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  scriptures  contain 
no  accoimt  <>f  the  institution  of  Christian  baptism. 
The  first  notice  which  we  have  of  it  relates  to  it  as 
already  instituted,  and  as  being  administered  by  the 
disciples  of  Christ  to  large  numbers  of  converts. 
We  arc  expressly  informed  that  Christ  did  not  ad- 
minister his  baptism,  but  referred  the  administration 
of  it  entirely  to  his  disciples.  John  4:  2.  Where 
it  is  said,  expressly,  that  he  baptized,  in  John  3:  22, 
it  must  be  interpreted  on  the  principle  that,  what  one 
does  by  another  he  does  by  himself.  He  baptized 
by  employing  his  disciples  to  do  it  for  him. 


Nature  and  design  of  Christian  Baptism. 

\  24.  The  nature  and  design  of  Christian  bap- 
tism are  not  particularly  explained,  either  in  connec- 
tion with  the  first  notices  of  it,  or  subsequently. 
They  must,  therefore,  be  ascertained  by  indirect  evi- 
dence. 

Had  it  differed  essentially  from  the  other  custom- 
ary baptisms  of  the  Jews,  some  explanation  would 
have  been  necessary.  The  fact,  therefore,  that  no 
such  explanations  are  given,  proves  that  it  does  not 
differ  essentially  from  them. 

The  older  Jewish  baptisms  were  ceremonial  puri- 
fications, representing,  symbolically,  that  spiritual 
cleansing  which  fits  us  for  the  enjoyment  of  God. 
The  same  appears  to  have  been  the  case  with  John's 
baptism.  It  was  a  ceremonial  cleansing  or  rite  of  puri- 
fication, representing  holiness  as  necessary  to  salva- 
tion. 

The  allusions  to  baptism,  and  the  figurative  uses 
made  of  it  in  the  New  Testament,  fully  sustain  this 


50  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

view.  Hence  the  expression,  to  baptize  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Matt.  3:  11 ;  Mark  1:8;  Luke  3:  16, 
17;  John  1:  33.  In  these  passages,  John  contrasts 
his  baptizing  with  water,  with  Christ's  baptizing  with 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

Christ  makes  the  same  contrast,  Acts  1 :  5.  "For 
John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence." 
Peter  alludes  to  this  declaration  on  the  occasion  of 
his  being  called  to  account  for  preaching  the  gospel 
to  Cornelius  and  his  friends.  Acts  11 :  15,  16;  "And 
as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as 
on  us  at  the  beginning.  Then  I  remembered  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John  indeed 
baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost.''  The  conclusion  drawn  from 
Peter's  argument,  of  which  the  above  is  a  part,  was, 
that  "  God  also,  to  the  Gentiles,  granted  repentance 
to  life."     Acts  11:  18. 

It  appears  that  the  declaration  of  Christ,  "  ye  shall 
be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days 
hence,"  was  fulfilled  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  largely  poured  out,  and  operated 
in  the  conversion  of  about  three  thousand  persons. 
These  persons  were  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
by  being  converted  and  purified  from  sin. 

In  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends, 
Peter  recognizes  the  administration  of  this  same 
spiritual  baptism  to  the  Gentiles,  which  had  before 
been  performed  upon  the  Jews. 

In  Acts  22:  16,  Ananias  says  to  Saul,  "And  now, 
why  tamest  thou?  Arise,  be  baptized,  and  wash 
away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord." 
Here  baptism   is  spoken  of  as  a  washing  away  of 


CHRISTIAN    BArTISM.  51 

sins,  showing  that,  in  the  apprehension  of  Ananias, 
it  wa.-  a  symbol  of  moral  cleansing. 

Titus  3:  5,  contains  a  similar  allusion,  where  it  is 
said  of  Christ,  that  "Not  by  works  of  righteousness 
which  wo  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy,  he 
saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  the  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Also,  1  Pet. 3:  21.  "The  antitype  to  which  thing, 
baptism  even  now  saves  us,  (not  the  putting  away  of 
the  filth  of  the  flesh;  but  the  answer  of  a  good  con- 
science towards  God,)  by  the  resurrection  of  Christ.-* 

Here  baptism  is  referred  to  as  a  saving  ordinance. 
But  the  baptism  which  has  this  efficacy  is  said  not  to 
be  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  that 
internal  operation  of  the  Spirit,  which  produces  a 
good  conscience.  The  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
is  the  declaration  of  Christian  faith,  which  is  returned 
from  a  sanctified  mind.  Hence  external  baptism  is 
a  sign  of  internal  cleansing.  This  conclusion,  which 
has  already  been  deduced  from  other  premises,  may 
fairly  be  deduced  from  the  above  passage  alone,  and 
is  a  necessary  inference  from  it. 

John  3 :  25,  is  in  agreement  with  the  doctrine 
that  Christian  baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  ceremonial 
purification,  where  the  question  concerning  purifica- 
tion appears  to  have  been  a  question  concerning  the 
relative  character  of  the  baptisms  of  John  and  Christ. 
This  clearly  appears,  from  the  verses  which  follow, 
and  from  the  information  given  to  John  on  the  oc- 
casion, as  involving  the  matter  in  dispute,  that  Christ 
was  baptizing,  and  that  all  men  were  coming  to  him 
for  baptism. 

In  addition  to  being  a  symbol  of  purification,  bap- 
tism was  a  seal  of  discipleship  to  Christ.  This  is 
evident,  from  the  following  considerations : 


52  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

1.  It  was  administered  to  all  disciples  immediate- 
ly on  their  becoming  such,  and  was  never  repeated. 
The  obligation  to  receive  it  was  universal.  Those 
who  were  made  disciples  during  the  personal  minis- 
try of  Christ  were  baptized  during  his  ministry;  those 
who  were  made  disciples  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
were  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost;  and  so  of 
others. 

2.  The  baptismal  formula  indicates  that  baptism 
is  a  seal  of  discipleship. 

This  is  alluded  to  in  the  following  passages: 
Matt.  28 :  19.  "  Baptizing  them  to  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Acts  8:  16;  "For  he  (the  Holy  Ghost,)  as  yet  was 
fallen  upon  none  of  them,  only  they  were  baptized 
to  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  Acts  19:  5; 
"  When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  to  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  Rom.  6:  3,  4;  "Know 
ye  not,  that  as  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  to  Christ, 
were  baptized  to  his  death?  Therefore,  we  are 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  to  his  death."  That  is, 
by  being  baptized  to  his  death.  1  Cor.  12:  13; 
"  For  by  one  spirit  we  are  all  baptized  to  one  body, 
whether  Jews  or  Gentiles;  *  whether  bond  or  free." 
Gal.  3 :  27;  "  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  bap- 
tized to  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ." 

In  the  above  passages,  persons  are  spoken  of  as 
being  baptized  to  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost;  and  in  allusion  to  the  fact  that  Christ 
was  the  discriminating  object  of  faith;  as  being  bap- 
tized to  him,  the  other  persons  of  the  Trinity  not 
being  specified.  They  are  also  spoken  of  as  being 
baptized  to  the  death  of  Christ,  and  to  one  body  or 
community. 


CHRISTIAN    BAfimC.  53 

The  word  which  I  have  translated  to,  in  all  ihc 

above  passages,  and  which,  in  the  common  bible,  is, 
in  some  of  them,  translated  in,  and  in  some  of  them 
into,  is  susceptible  of  several  different  significations. 

It  means  to,  into,  in,  for,  &C,  and  is  translated  by 
these  different  words,  and  others,  both  in  the  New 
Testament  and  in  other  ancient  writings.  It  is  often 
used  after  verbs  of  motion,  to  express  the  direction 
of  that  motion;  as  in  John  7:  8,  where  it  occurs 
twice.  "Go  ye  up  to  this  feast.  I  go  not  up  yet  to 
this  feast,  for  my  time  is  not  yet  fully  come/'  Matt. 
5:  1;  "He  went  up  to  a  mountain."  In  the  latter 
passage,  the  preposition  is  incorrectly  translated  into 
in  the  common  bible. 

Men  often  go  to  mountains,  but  they  do  not,  in  or- 
dinary cases,  go  into  them. 

John  8:1.  "Jesus  went  to  the  Mount  of  Olives.'" 
John  1*2 :  1 ;  "  Then  Jesus,  six  days  before  the  pass- 
over,  came  to  Bethany."  John  17 :  1 ;  "  These  words 
spake  Jesus,  and  lifted  up  his  eyes  to  heaven." 

Before  the  names  of  persons,  this  preposition  sig- 
nifies to,  towards,  for. 

In  most  of  the  passages  which  contain  an  allusion 
to  the  baptismal  formula,  this  preposition  is  used  be- 
fore the  names  of  persons;  in  one  of  them  it  is  used 
before  a  word  which,  in  that  connection,  denotes  the 
Christian  church.  What  is  the  relation,  then,  which 
it  must  denote  in  these  connections?  Evidently  it 
denotes  the  relation  of  the  person  baptized  to  the 
person  to  whom  he  is  baptized.  If  he  is  baptized  to 
the  Trinity,  the  preposition  before  Trinity  denotes 
the  relation  of  the  baptized  person  to  the  Trinity. 
If  he  is  baptized  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  it  denotes  the 
relation  of  the  baptized  person  to  the  Lord  Jesus. 


54  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

If  he  is  baptized  to  one  body,  the  church,  it  denotes 
his  relation  to  the  church. 

What  then  is  the  relation  of  a  baptized  person  to 
the  Trinity? 

Answer.  It  is  the  relation  of  a  professed  worship- 
per and  disciple  of  the  Trinity. 

So  the  relation  of  a  baptized  person  to  the  Lord 
Jesus,  is  that  of  a  professed  worshipper  and  disciple 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  his  relation  to  the  church  is 
that  of  a  church  member. 

It  appears  then,  most  clearly,  that  persons  are  bap- 
tized to  Christ,  as  his  worshippers  and  disciples. 
Baptism,  therefore,  is  manifestly  the  seal  of  their  dis- 
cipleship,  because  it  is  a  consecration  of  them  to 
him  as  his  worshippers  and  disciples,  or  a  seal  of  such 
consecration. 


Theory  that  Christian  Baptism  is  a  symbolical  rep- 
resentation of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection 
of  Christ,  considered  and  disproved. 

$25.  Some  have  adopted  the  theory  that  Chris- 
tian baptism  is  a  symbolical  representation  of  the 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  This  theory 
is  supported  by  an  appeal  to  Rom.  6:  3-5,  and  Col. 
2:  11,  12.  These  passages,  properly  translated, 
read  as  follows : 

"  Know  ye  not  that  as  many  of  us  as  have  been  bap- 
tized to  Christ,  have  been  baptized  to  his  death.  We 
are,  therefore,  buried  with  him  by  baptism  to  death, 
that,  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the  glory 
of  the  Father,  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of 
life.    For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the 


CHRISTIAN    B.vrTISM  55 

likeness  of  his  death,  \vc  shall   be  also  [planted  to- 
gether in  the  likeness]  of  his  resurrection." 

"In  whom,  also,  ye  are  circumcised,  with  a  cir- 
cumcision made  without  hands,  by  putting  off  the 
carnal  body,  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ,  being 
buried  with  him  by  baptism ;  by  which,  also,  ye  are 
risen  with  him,  through  faith,  in  respect  to  the  power 
of  God,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead." 

In  the  common  bible,  the  preposition  which  shows 
the  relation  between  baptized  and  Christ,  and  bap- 
tized and  death,  Rom.  6 :  3,  is  translated  into  instead 
of  to.  This  translation  falls  little  short  of  being  ab- 
surd. Even  on  the  supposition  that  baptism  was  ad- 
ministered by  immersion,  what  propriety  would  there 
be  in  calling  such  an  immersion  an  immersion  into 
Christ,  or  an  immersion  into  his  death?  On  that 
supposition,  baptism  was  an  immersion  into  water, 
but  not  into  Christ  or  into  his  death. 

But  considering  baptism,  without  respect  to  the 
mode  of  its  administration,  as  sealing  persons  for 
Christ,  and  thus  uniting  them  to  him  in  church  mem- 
bership; and  substituting  to  for  into,  we  have  a  con- 
sistent sense.  According  to  this  hypothesis,  being 
baptized  to  Christ  means  being  made  a  professed 
disciple  of  Christ  by  baptism ;  and  being  baptized  to 
the  death  of  Christ,  means  being  made  a  subject  of 
the  death  of  Christ,  or  being  introduced  by  baptism 
to  a  state  of  death  analogous  to  that  which  Christ 
suffered.  Being  baptized  to  the  death  of  Christ,  is 
a  figurative  expression,  introduced  as  an  inference 
from  our  baptism  to  Christ.  Because  Christ  has 
died,  and  we  are  baptized  to  him  after  his  death; 
therefore,  baptism  introduces  us  to  a  state  of  death. 
By  death  is  here  meant  deadness  to  sin. 


50  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

In  the  expressions  baptized  to  Christ,  and  baptized 
to  the  death  of  Christ,  therefore,  we  have  no  evi- 
dence of  any  representation  of  Christ's  death  in  bap- 
tism; neither  do  these  expressions  indicate  any 
particular  mode  of  performing  this  rite  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  others.  Their  signiflcancy  depends  not  on 
the  mode,  but  on  the  design  of  baptism,  as  a  rite  of 
initiation  into  the  Christian  church,  and  an  ordinance 
by  which  persons  are  sealed  and  devoted  to  Christ. 

Being  buried  with  Christ,  by  baptism  to  death,  or 
by  being  baptized  to  death,  means  being  located  with 
Christ;  being  introduced  into  the  same  state  and 
condition  with  him,  by  being  baptized  to  him,  or  de- 
voted and  sealed  by  baptism  to  him.  Here,  there- 
fore, is  no  representation  of  burial  by  baptism. 

It  is  inferred  that  if  we  are  baptized  or  devoted  by 
baptism  to  Christ,  who  has  suffered  death,  then  we 
must  be  dead  also;  that  is,  dead  to  sin.  And  it  is 
still  further  inferred,  that,  as  the  dead  are  usually 
buried,  and  thus  removed  entirely  from  any  partici- 
pation in  the  affairs  of  this  world,  Christians,  being 
dead  as  Christ  was  dead,  must  also  be  buried  as  he 
was  buried.  Thus,  buried  with  Christ  means  buried 
as  Christ  was  buried.  This,  however,  is  to  be  taken 
figuratively  and  spiritually.  We  are  buried  from  a 
state  of  sin  by  being  far  removed  from  it.  The 
Apostle  extends  this  into  an  allegory  through  Rom. 
6:  5,  6,  &c. 

In  the  whole,  however,  no  allusion  is  made  to 
what  baptism  represents,  but  to  the  relations  which 
it  establishes,  and  the  condition  into  which  it  intro- 
duces us. 

Being  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,  and  being 
risen  with  him  by  the  same,  (mentioned  in  Col- 
losians.)  are  similar  to  the  passage  now  explained. 


The  preposition  which  I  have  translated  by,  is,  in 
tlir  common  bible,  incorrectly  translated  in.  Before 
noiii  ig  place  or  capacity  for  containing  any 

thing,  if  signifies  in,  at,  or  by,  as  in  Luke  11:  1; 

mat,  as  ho  was  in  a  certain 
place  praying;"  "in  a  house,"  Matt  8:  6;  "  in  the 
temple,'1  Acts  2:46;  "in  the  synagogues,"  Matt. 

Before  nouns  denoting  elevated  objects,  it  signifies 
on  or  upon;  as  "on  a  tree,"  Mark  11:  13;  "on  a 
mountain,"  Luke  8:  32;  John  4:  20;  Heb.  8:  5. 

Before  nouns  denoting  means,  instruments,  and 
agents,  it  signifies  by  or  with;  as  Matt.  3:  11;  "I 
indeed  baptize  you  with  water  to  repentance;  but  he 
that  comcth  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes 
I  am  not  worthy  to  bear;  he  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire."  Matt.  9:  34.  "  But 
the  Pharisees  said,  he  casteth  out  demons  by  Beelze- 
bub, the  prince  of  demons."  Matt.  12:  24,  26. 
Acts  7:  35;  "  This  Moses,  whom  they  refused,  say- 
ing, who  made  thee  a  ruler  and  a  judge  1  the  same 
did  God  send  to  be  a  ruler  and  a  deliverer,  by  the 
hand  of  the  angel  who  appeared  to  him  in  the  bush." 
Rom.  15:  16;  "That  the  offering  of  the  Gentiles 
might  be  acceptable,  being  sanctified  by  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Rom.  16:  16;  "Salute  one  another  with  a 
holy  kiss."  Rev.  6:8;  "And  power  was  given  to 
him  over  a  fourth  part  of  the  earth,  to  kill  with  the 
sword  and  with  famine,  and  with  pestilence."  Rev. 
5:9;  "And  thou  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy 
blood." 

In  the  above  cases,  and  in  many  others,  the  pre- 
position Which,  in  Col.  2:  12,  expresses  the  relation 
of  baptism  to  being  buried  with  Christ,  and  to  being 
risen  with  him,  expresses  the  relation  of  the  instru- 
5 


58  CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

ment,  means,  or  agent  to  the  action  performed.  Here, 
also,  it  has  a  similar  meaning.  Baptism  is  the  in- 
strument or  means  of  our  burial  and  resurrection 
with  Christ. 

But  in  what  sense  does  it  bury  and  raise  us  up  to 
life  with  Christ? 

Answer.  By  representing  us  as  dying  to  sin  and 
becoming  alive  to  righteousness ;  or,  in  other  words, 
by  representing  us  as  cleansed  from  sin,  and  made 
spiritually  alive  with  holiness. 

This  is  the  appropriate  symbolical  significancy  of 
all  baptisms;  or  baptism  buries  us  with  Christ,  and 
raises  us  up  to  life  with  him,  by  sealing  us  his,  and 
devoting  us  sacramentally  to  him. 

It  appears,  therefore,  from  a  careful  examination  of 
Rom.  6:  3-5,  and  Col.  2:11,  12,  that  these  pas- 
sages do  not  assert  nor  imply  any  symbolical  repre- 
sentation of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  by 
Christian  baptism. 

The  administration  of  baptism  in  the  modes  ap- 
propriated to  the  Mosaic  baptisms,  that  is,  by  sprink- 
ling and  affusion,  does  not  bear  the  slightest  analogy 
to  the  death,  burial,  or  resurrection  of  Christ.  The 
administration  of  the  same  by  immersion  might  rep- 
resent a  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  if  it  had  been 
appointed  for  that  purpose.  But  we  are  no  where 
informed,  in  the  scriptures,  that  such  an  appointment 
was  made;  neither  is  there  any  evidence  whatever  of 
such  an  appointment. 

To  suppose  that  there  was  such  an  appointment 
on  account  of  allusions,  which  admit  of  a  satisfactory 
explanation  on  other  grounds,  is  evidently  unauthor- 
ized. The  allusions  to  baptism  in  Rom.  6 :  3-5,  and 
Col.  2:  11,  12,  do  admit  of  satisfactory  explana- 
tions on  other  grounds.      They,  therefore,  do  not 


MODE  OF    CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM.  N 

prove  an  appointment  of  baptism  to  represent  the 

dcatli,  burial,  and  reSOTTectlon  of  Christ  Conse- 
quently, there  is  no  proof  in  favor  of  the  hypoth- 
that  Christian  baptism  is  a  symbolical  representation 
of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  in 
the  bible;  That  hypothesis  must  fall.  It  is  not  a 
part  of  religious  truth.  It  is  not  an  appropriate  ob- 
ject of  religious  faith.  Faith  requires  evidence;  to 
believe  without  evidence,  or  any  further  than  evi- 
dence leads,  is  not  to  exercise  legitimate  faith  but 
criminal  credulity. 


CHAPTER  V. 

MODE  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. -IM- 
MERSION  AND   POURING. 

The  importance  of  a  correct  and  convincing  exposi- 
tion of  the  Scriptural  mode  of  Baptism. 

§  26.  The  world,  at  the  present  time,  is  greatly 
divided  in  its  opinions  in  respect  to  the  scriptural 
mode  of  Christian  baptism.  The  Greek  church 
practices  immersion;  the  Roman  Catholic  church, 
sprinkling  and  affusion;  the  Nestorians  and  Arme- 
nians, immersion;  most  Protestant  churches  practice 
affusion  and  sprinkling;  and  the  Baptist  churches, 
with  their  numerous  affiliated   branches,  many  of 


60  MODE   OF   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

which  have  departed  from  the  general  standard  of 
orthodoxy  on  other  religious  subjects,  practice  im- 
mersion. 

This  extensive  diversity  is  not  maintained  in  peace. 
The  different  denominations  insist  upon  their  parti- 
cular modes  of  baptism  as  highly  important  to  be 
adopted,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.  The  Baptist 
churches,  especially,  insist  on  immersion,  not  only  as 
the  scriptural  mode  of  baptism,  but  as  the  only  mode 
in  which  this  ordinance  can  be  administered.  They 
deny  that  the  baptisms  of  those  churches  which  prac- 
tice affusion  and  sprinkling,  are  baptisms,  and  con- 
sider them  as  possessing  no  validity  whatever.  Hence 
they  regard  the  members  of  such  churches  as  entire- 
ly unbaptized,  and  as  having  renounced,  or  essential- 
ly corrupted,  one  of  the  sacraments  of  the  Christian 
church.  On  this  ground  they  separate  themselves 
from  the  entire  body  of  Christians  who  practice  af- 
fusion and  sprinkling,  and  have  no  communion  with 
them.  They  thus  create  an  additional  schism  in  the 
already  divided  body  of  Christ,  contrary  to  that 
memorable  prayer  of  the  Saviour,  that  his  disciples 
all  may  be  one,  as  he  and  the  Father  are  one,  in  or- 
der that  the  entire  world  may  be  brought  to  believe 
in  his  divine  character  and  mission.  John  17:  21. 
Churches  which  God  has  acknowledged,  by  bestow- 
ing his  spirit  upon  them,  and  crowning  their  organi- 
zations with  success  and  usefulness,  their  immersion- 
ist  brethren  do  not  acknowledge.  All  schisms  are 
injurious.  They  impair  the  influence  of  Christianity 
generally,  by  placing  its  professors  in  opposition  to 
each  other.  They  give  the  impression  to  unbe- 
lievers, that  the  principles  of  the  Christian  system 
are  uncertain;  that  they  are  matters  of  opinion  and 
speculation  merely,  not  of  knowledge.     They  raise 


DUMM  ami  roller  01 

id  insurmountable  obstacle  to  the  genera]  triumph  of 
Christianity.  Christianity  cannot  triumph  till  the 
essential  unity  of  the  church  is  re-established.  Then 
the  powers  of  earth  and  hell  will  not  be  able  to  pre- 
vent its  triumph,  or  to  protract,  for  any  consider;)  ble 
time,  the  period  of  its  depression. 

If  the  scriptural  mode  of  Christian  baptism  can  be 
correctly  and  convincingly  expounded,  the  immer- 
sionis?  Bchism  may,  after  a  time,  be  honied.  No  one 
who  believes  in  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  who 
expects  its  final  triumph,  can  doubt  the  practicability 
of  making  such  an  exposition.  The  scriptural  doc- 
trine on  this  subject  must  be  capable  of  being  clear- 
ly exhibited,  whatever  it  is.  A  clear  exhibition  of 
it  must  carry  conviction  to  reflecting  minds.  If  it 
does  not  triumph  at  once,  it  must,  when  it  comes  to 
be  properly  presented,  gradually  prevail. 

Such  a  presentation  must  be  made.  The  inter- 
ests of  truth,  the  honor  and  success  of  religion,  the 
salvation  of  the  world  by  an  undivided  church,  de- 
lineated on  the  pages  of  inspiration,  all  conspire  to 
demand  it.  The  demand  must  be  answered.  God's 
Spirit,  moving  mysteriously  on  the  minds  of  his  peo- 
ple, will  impel  them  to  the  work,  till  the  truth  shall 
be  shown;  and  till  it  shall  be  so  shown  as  to  pre- 
vail. 

The  principal  modes  of  Christian  baptism  are, 
immersion,  pouring,  and  affusion  and  sprinkling. 
Affusion  and  sprinkling  constitute,  essentially,  but 
one  mode  of  baptism,  and  are  used  together,  or  one 
or  the  other  is  adopted  indifferently  by  those  who 
adopt  these  rites. 


t)2  MODE   OF   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

ARGUMENTS   IN   FAVOR   OF   IMMERSION. 

Specification  of  the  principal  Arguments. 

$27.  1.  That  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word 
baptize,  in  the  classic  Greek  writers,  is  to  immerse 
or  plunge  in  a  liquid,  generally  in  water. 

2.  That  John's  baptism  was  administered  in  the 
river  Jordan. 

3.  That,  in  being  baptized,  persons  went  into  the 
water,  and  came  out  of  the  water. 

4.  That  baptism  is  a  symbolical  representation  of 
the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 

5.  That  immersion  prevailed  at  an  early  period 
after  the  age  of  the  apostles,  and  still  prevails  in  the 
Greek  church,  and  in  other  branches  of  the  professed 
church  of  Christ  in  the  East,  which  are  the  lineal 
descendants  of  the  apostolic  churches. 

These  five  arguments  are  the  foundation  and  sup- 
port of  the  doctrine  of  immersion,  as  the  scriptural 
mode  of  baptism.  They  are  the  premises  of  the  im- 
mersionist  conclusion.  The  conclusion  drawn  from 
them  is,  that  baptism  ought  to  be  administered  by 
immersion.  Two  things  are  always  to  be  considered 
in  order  to  determine  the  conclusiveness  or  incon- 
clusiveness  of  reasoning. 

1.  The  premises.  The  first  thing  to  be  consider- 
ed in  deciding  on  the  validity  of  an  argument,  is, 
whether  the  premises  are  true.  If  the  premises  are 
not  true,  they  can  of  course  prove  nothing. 

2.  The  conclusion  drawn  from  the  premises.  If 
the  premises  are  found  not  to  be  true,  further  in- 
quiry is  unnecessary.  But  if  they  are  found  to  be 
true,  the  next  thing  to  be  determined  is,  whether  the 


■SBSJffli   and  FOURIHe.  63 

conclusion  is  a  legitimate  and  necessary  deduction 
from  the  premises,  or  from  any  on<'  of  them.     If  it 

ia  iiot.tlir  argument  is  imperfect, and  the  conclusion 
false  or  uncertain.  Every  conclusion  is  uncertain, 
ami  should  be  presumed  io  be  false,  till  true  pre- 
mises are  found,  from  which  il  can  be  legitimately 
inferred. 

The  doctrine  of  immersion  is  inferred  from  five 
independent  premises.  If  it  is  a  legitimate  and 
necessary  inference  from  any  one  of  tbem,  and  tbat 
premise  is  found  to  be  true,  then  this  doctrine  must 
be  admitted  to  be  true.  Still  more  must  it  be  ad- 
mitted to  be  true,  if  two  or  more  of  the  above  pre- 
mises are  found  to  be  true,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
render  the  conclusion  in  favor  of  immersion  legiti- 
mate and  necessary. 


First  argument  in  favor  of  Immersion. 

$  28.  The  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word  baptize, 
in  the  classic  Greek  writers,  is  to  immerse ;  there- 
fore, this  word  means  to  immerse,  in  the  scriptures; 
and  being  applied  in  this  sense  to  describe  baptism, 
that  rite  must  originally  have  been  administered  by 
immersion,  and  ought  to  be  so  administered  now. 

The  definition  of  baptize,  as  this  word  is  used  in 
the  classic  Greek  writers,  is  given  by  Domiegan,  a 
popular  Greek  lexicographer,  as  follows:  "To  im- 
merse repeatedly  into  a  liquid ;  to  submerge ;  to  soak 
thoroughly ;  to  saturate ;  hence  to  drench  with  wine ; 
metaphorically,  to  confound  totally;  to  dip  in  a  ves- 
sel and  draw/' 

These  definitions  arc  correct,  so  far  as  classic 
Greek  usage  is  concerned;  and  the  meaning  of  the 


64  MODE   OF   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

word  in  the  New  Testament,  ought  to  be  presumed 
to  be  in  agreement  with  classic  usage,  unless  evi- 
dence exists  of  a  different  usage  among  the  Jewish 
Greek  writers.  If  evidence  exists  of  a  different 
usage  among  the  Jews  who  used  the  Greek  language, 
that  usage  ought  to  be  followed  in  the  interpretation 
of  this  word  in  the  New  Testament,  in  preference  to 
classic  Greek  usage. 

It  has  already  been  shown  (§  3-7,)  that  a  different 
usage  did  exist  among  the  Jews.  The  Mosaic  puri- 
fications are  denominated  baptisms.  These  were 
not  immersions,  but  sprinklings  and  affusions,  or 
washings.  The  modes  of  these  baptisms  were  vari- 
ous. Hence  they  are  called  various  baptisms.  Heb. 
9:  10. 

Their  title  baptisms,  therefore,  did  not  depend  up- 
on any  particular  mode,  otherwise  the  Mosaic  puri- 
fications could  not  have  been  various  baptisms;  for 
they  differed  considerably  from  each  other  in  respect 
to  modes  of  administration.  Yet  they  are  referred 
to  in  Heb.  9:  10,  as  different  or  various  baptisms. 
It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  applications  of  water 
in  different  modes,  such  as  sprinkling  and  affusion, 
or  washing,  are  baptisms  j  and  a  Jewish  usage  is  es- 
tablished in  respect  to  the  words  baptize  and  baptism, 
entirely  different  from  that  of  the  classic  Greek 
writers,  in  favor  of  sprinkling  and  affusion  instead  of 
immersion. 

This  usage  is  a  legitimate  rule  of  interpretation 
for  the  words  baptize  and  baptism,  in  all  cases  where 
their  meaning  would  otherwise  be  determined,  in 
conformity  with  classic  Greek  usage. 

The  first  argument,  therefore,  for  immersion.  Bfl 
the  scriptural  mode  of  Christian  baptism,  is  incon- 
clusive.    It  does  not  prove  the  position  which  it  is 


■BOHBsoa  am)  j'di  kin...  »;.") 

addiici  (1  to  prove;  neither  docs  it,  in  the  real  cir- 
c-iini  ny  presumption  in 

favor  of  th:it  position. 

The  established  Jewish  usage,  in  favor  of  a  differ- 
ent signification  of  baptize,  and  baptism  from  that 
which  is  common  in  the  classic  Greek  writers*  supef- 
oedes  entirely  the  other  and  more  remote  ride  of 
classic  usage,  and  is  itself  the  true  rule,  according  to 
which  these  words  ought  to  be  interpreted  in  the 
New  Testament. 


Second  argument  in  favor  of  Immersion. 

§29.  John's  baptism  was  administered,  princi- 
pally, in  the  river  Jordan.  That,  being  administered 
in  the  river,  it  was  probably  administered  by  immer- 
sion, because  a  river  would  not  have  been  necessary 
to  sprinkle  or  wash  from. 

All  the  force  which  this  argument  can  have,  is  to 
create  a  probability  or  presumption  in  favor  of  im- 
mersion; and  this  force  may  be  counterbalanced  by 
opposing  evidence  of  any  decisive  kind. 

The  inspired  record  has  already  been  shown  (§  21) 
to  be  indefinite,  and  not  to  declare  with  certainty, 
whether  John  baptized  at  the  Jordan,  or  in  the  Jor- 
dan. If  he  only  baptized  at  the  Jordan,  it  may  have 
been  at  a  greater  or  less  distance  from  the  river,  and 
still  have  been  at  the  Jordan,  in  the  common  accepta- 
tion of  that  phrase. 

But  if  he  actually  baptized  in  the  Jordan,  as  ap- 
pears to  have  been  the  case  in  the  baptism  of  Christ, 
which  is  more  circumstantially  described  than  his 
other  baptisms,  this  does  not  prove  that  he  baptized 
by  immersion. 


66  MODE   OF   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

Some  of  the  Mosaic  baptisms  were  required  to  be 
administered  with  running  water.  John  may  have 
made  use  of  the  same ;  and  if  he  did,  this  is  a  rea- 
son why  he  should  have  baptized  at  the  Jordan. 
Another  reason  for  his  holding  his  meetings  near 
that  river,  may  have  been  to  accommodate  the  vast 
multitudes  who  attended  on  his  ministry,  with  an  am- 
ple supply  of  water  for  themselves  and  their  ani- 
mals. 

These  reasons  are  sufficient  to  account  for  John's 
having  preached  and  baptized  at  the  Jordan,  and  in 
other  places  where  there  were  many  streams,  whether 
the  mode  of  his  baptism  was  by  immersion,  or  by  af- 
fusion and  sprinkling.  It  does  not,  therefore,  prove 
immersion.  In  order  to  prove  immersion,  it  ought 
to  be  unaccountable  on  any  other  hypothesis.  But 
it  is  not  unaccountable  on  the  hypothesis  of  affusion 
and  sprinkling. 

Besides,  even  if  it  did  prove  immersion  in  the 
case  of  John's  baptism,  it  would  prove  nothing  in 
respect  to  Christian  baptism.  For  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  Christian  baptism  was  administered  in  the 
river  Jordan,  or  in  any  other  streams.  The  Mosaic 
baptisms  were  administered  in  different  modes;  and 
John's  baptism,  for  aught  that  appears  may  have  been 
administered  in  one  mode  and  Christ's  in  another. 

This  argument,  therefore,  like  the  former,  proves 
nothing. 


Third  argument  in  favor  of  Immersion. 

$30.  In  being  baptized,  persons  went  into  tho 
water  and  came  out  of  the  water.  This  was  entirely 
unnecessary  for  washing  and  sprinkling,  unless  the 


IMMERSION    AND    roiKI.\<;.  67 

washing  was  general,  pertaining  to  the  whole  body. 
It  t lit  i *  fore  proves  Immersion. 

The  premise  assumed  in  this  argument  requires 
proof.  The  passages  (Matt.  3:  16,  and  Mark  1: 
10,)  generally  relied  on  by  immersionists,  in  proof 
of  it,  have  been  shown  ($21,)  to  bo  indefinite,  and 
not  to  teach  With  certainty  any  more  than  that,  in 
the  administration  of  John's  baptism,  the  administra- 
tor and  the  subject  both  went  to  and  from  the  water. 
The  preposition,  unfortunately  translated  out  of  in 
these  passages,  is  very  seldom,  if  ever,  used  in  the 
sense  of  out  of;  from  and  away  from  being  its  ap- 
propriate meaning. 

Acts  8 :  38,  39,  ought  also  to  be  translated  in  con- 
formity with  Matt  3 :  16,  and  Mark  1 :  10.  Properly 
translated,  it  reads  as  follows:  "And  Philip  and  the 
Eunuch  both  went  down  to  the  water,  and  he  bap- 
tized him;  and  when  they  came  upyro?n  die  water, 
the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip,  and  he  saw 
him  no  more ;  and  he  went  on  his  way  rejoicing." 

The  preposition  which  I  have  translated  from,  in 
the  above  passage,  is  a  different  one  from  that  used 
in  the  two  other  passages  just  considered.  Before 
nouns  denoting  place,  however,  it  signifies  from  and 
away  from,  equally  with  out  of,  and  is  so  defined  by 
the  best  lexicographers.  See  Donnegan,  Brctschnci- 
der,  and  others.  In  this  passage  it  is  virtually  re- 
stricted to  the  sense  of  from,  by  the  relation  of  the 
clause  in  which  it  stands  to  the  clause  descriptive  of 
the  going  down  to  the  water.  The  mode  of  expres- 
sion in  that  clause  is  the  same  which  is  used  in  Matt. 
3:  16,  and  Mark  1:  10,  where  the  accompanying 
preposition,  expressing  the  relation  of  the  ascent  or 
going  up  to  the  water,  signifies  only  from  or  away 
from,  not  out  of.     In  those  passages,  therefore,  the 


58  MODE    OF    CHKISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

descent  or  going  down  must  have  been  to  the  water, 
because  the  ascent,  or  going  up,  was  only  from  it. 
In  this  passage,  therefore,  it  ought  to  be  presumed  to 
have  a  similar  meaning,  unless  the  context  requires 
a  different  one.  But  the  context  does  not  require  a 
different  one.  It  admits  either  of  the  same  or  of 
another,  and  admits  of  the  same  equally  well  with 
the  other.  Therefore,  the  descent,  or  going  down, 
in  Acts  8 :  38,  is  a  descent  or  going  down  to  the 
water.  Consequently,  the  ascent,  or  going  up,  men- 
tioned in  the  following  verse,  must  be  an  ascent  or 
going  up  from  the  water,  not  out  of  it. 

A  similar  usage  in  respect  to  the  preposition  which 
I  have  translated  from,  is  found  in  John  6:  23. 
"  Howbeit  there  came  other  boats  from  Tiberias." 
Matt.  17:  9;  "As  they  went  down  from  the  moun- 
tain.1' The  preposition  translated  from,  in  these 
passages,  is  the  same  that  expresses  the  relation  of 
the  ascent  or  going  up  to  the  water,  in  the  case  of 
Philip  and  the  Eunuch. 

The  passages  relied  on  by  immersionists,  there- 
fore, to  prove  that,  in  the  administration  of  Christian 
baptism,  there  was  a  going  down  into  the  water  and 
a  coming  up  out  of  it,  fail  of  proving  the  position 
assumed.  The  premise  of  the  third  immersionist 
argument,  therefore,  being  unproved,  and  not  being 
known  to  be  true,  no  legitimate  conclusion  can  be 
deduced  from  it  in  favor  of  immersion. 

But  even  if  this  premise  was  true,  it  would  not 
prove  immersion.  In  the  ancient  representations  of 
the  baptism  of  Christ  by  John,  made  by  different 
artists,  and  handed  down  from  the  fifth  century,  iho 
Saviour  is  constantly  represented  as  standing  up  to 
the  middle  in  water,  and  being  baptized  by  pouring. 
There  is  a  representation  of  this  kind  in  the  dome  of 


!■■■■!  Ill  Ml   ami    roriiiv:.  00 

a  F>  .  iii  Italy,  ;i  building  erected 

in  454,  A.  D. 
In  this  piece,  John. the  Baptist  is  repi 

on  tin'  bank  of  flhe  Jordan*  holding  a  ci 

in  liis  It'll  hand,  and  in  hifl  right  ft  shell  of  modi 

.  from  which  he  puurs  wafer  uu  tin-  head  of 
Christ  Chris*  receives  tide  standing  naked,  in  the 
water  up  to  his  waist. 

There  is  another  similar  representation  pn 
in  Mosaic,  in  the  church  in  Cosmedin,  in  Ravenna) 
which  was  erected  401,  A.  D.  In  this,  also.  Christ 
Stands  naked  in  the  river,  with  the  wall  r  reaching  to 
his  waist,  and  John,  standing  on  the  bank  of  the 
river,  pours  water  upon  his  head  from  a  small  shell 
or  cup.  Other  similar  representations  are  present  d 
of  later  date;  and  some  of  which  are  considerably 
anci<  nt,  but  of  uncertain  date. 

These  representations  teach  us  the  views  enter- 
tained by  Christians  in  those  times,  respecting  the 
mode  of  baptism  administered  by  John  to  the  Saviour. 
They  show  that  Christ  was  supposed  to  have  gone 
into  the  Jordan  naked,  and  there  to  have  been  bap- 
tized by  John,  standing  on  the  shore  and  pouring 
water  upon  him. 

This  supposition  is  not  more  improbable  than  im- 
mersion. If,  therefore,  it  could  be  proved  that  the 
subjects  of  John's  baptism,  went  actually  into  the 
water  to  be  baptized,  and  that  the  Eunuch  baptized 
by  Philip  did  the  same,  it  would  still  be  possible  that 
the  baptisms  were  administered  by  pouring  or  afTu- 
sion,  and  that  the  going  into  the  water  was  only  pre- 
paratory to  the  reception  of  baptism,  not  any  part, 
still  less  an  essential  part  of  the  rite. 

In  the  argument  under  consideration,  therefore, 
there  are  two  defects. 


70  MODE   OF   CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

1.  The  premise  is  not  proved,  and  cannot  be 
shown  to  be  true.  Consequently,  no  legitimate  con- 
clusion can  be  drawn  from  it  in  favor  of  immersion. 

2.  The  conclusion  in  favor  of  immersion  is  not 
a  legitimate  inference  from  the  premise,  if  it  was 
true-  Therefore,  if  the  premise  was  shown  to  be 
true,  the  conclusion  would  not  legitimately  follow. 
It  would  still  be  possible  that  the  going  into  the 
water  was  only  preparatory  to  pouring  or  affusion, 
and  that  the  baptismal  rite  consisted  essentially,  not 
in  going  into  the  water,  and  not  in  being  immersed 
in  it  after  having  gone  into  it,  but  in  having  water 
applied  by  affusion  or  pouring. 


Fourth  argument  in  favor  of  Immersion. 

§31.  Baptism  is  a  symbolical  representation  of 
the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  Im- 
mersion is  necessary  to  furnish  any  analogy  on  which 
to  found  such  a  representation.  Therefore,  immer- 
sion is  the  scriptural  and  proper  mode  of  baptism. 

The  premise  of  this  argument  is  a  hypothesis 
which  depends  for  its  support  on  two  solitary  pas- 
sages of  scripture,  Rom  6:  3-5,  and  Col.  2:  12. 
These  passages  have  been  considered,  (§25,)  and 
have  been  shown  not  to  afford  any  adequate  support 
to  this  hypothesis.  They  admit  of  easy  explanation 
on  the  supposition  that  baptism  is  to  be  administered 
by  affusion  and  sprinkling,  as  well  as  on  that  of  im- 
mersion. They  contain  a  manifest  allusion  to  the 
design  of  baptism  but  not  to  the  mode  of  its  ad- 
ministration. 

The  expression,  buried  with  Christ  by  faith,  is  as 
significant  and  consistent  as  buried  with  Christ  by 


IMMERSION"    AND    POURING.  71 

baptism;  and  being  baptized  to  Christ  is  as  signifi- 
cant, on  the  supposition  of  allusion  and  sprinkling, 
as  on  that  of  immersion.  Being  baptized  to  Christ, 
on  cither  supposition,  means  the  same  thing.  It 
means  not  being  immersed  or  plunged  into  him, 
which  would  fall  little  short  of  being  an  absurdity, 
but  being  devoted  to  him  by  baptism  as  his  disciples, 
or  as  his  subjects  and  worshippers. 

Besides,  if  it  was  the  design  of  baptism  to  repre- 
sent the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ, 
how  did  it  represent  these  events  before  they  occur- 
red? Christian  baptism  was  instituted  and  adminis- 
tered to  multitudes  before  Christ  died.  John  4:1. 
The  disciples  who  administered  these  baptisms  did 
not  know  as  yet  that  Christ  was  to  die;  still  less  that 
he  was  to  die  and  rise  again.  With  what  propriety 
could  they  have  administered  this  rite,  when  they 
did  not  know  and  could  not  explain  its  meaning? 
With  what  propriety  could  subjects  receive  it  without 
being  instructed  in  its  true  import  and  design?  Ac- 
cording to  the  hypothesis  that  baptism  represents  the 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  the  disci- 
ples, previous  to  the  crucifixion,  administered  it  in 
the  most  profound  ignorance  of  its  true  import  and 
design,  and  their  converts  received  it  in  like  ignor- 
ance. 

The  signification  of  baptism  here  supposed,  was 
entirely  different  from  that  of  the  Jewish  baptisms 
previously  instituted ;  all  of  which  were  purifications, 
or  symbols  of  moral  and  legal  cleansing.  Why  was 
no  explanation  of  this  difference  put  on  record  by 
the  Evangelists?  Why  was  no  allusion  made  to  it 
in  the  entire  gospel  history? 

If  Christian  baptism  was  to  be  understood  as  of 
similar  import  and  design  to  previously  instituted 


72  MODE   OF   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

baptisms,  it  required  no  explanation.  But  if  it  was 
now  used  for  a  purpose  altogether  new  and  unex- 
ampled, surely  some  intimation  of  this  departure 
from  previous  customary  usage  was  to  be  expected, 
and  was  necessary. 

But  no  intimation  of  this  kind  is  found  in  the  New 
Testament.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that  none  was 
necessary;  and  that  Christian  baptism  is  of  the  same 
general  import  and  significancy  as  the  previously  in- 
stituted baptisms  practiced  among  the  Jews. 


Fifth  argument  in  favor  of  Immersion. 

\  32.  Immersion  was  the  common  mode  of  bap- 
tism at  an  early  period  after  the  age  of  the  apostles, 
and  has  been  handed  down  by  tradition  in  the  Greek, 
Nestorian,  and  Armenian  churches,  till  the  present 
time. 

This  argument  is  not  drawn  from  the  scriptures 
but  from  uninspired  history.  It  is  adduced  as  a  sup- 
plement to  the  scriptural  arguments  in  favor  of  im- 
mersion. The  scriptural  arguments  in  favor  of 
immersion  have  been  seen  to  fail  entirely  of  estab- 
lishing the  position  in  favor  of  which  they  are  ad- 
duced. Can  the  cause  and  claims  of  immersion, 
unsupported  by  scriptural  evidence,  find  adequate 
support  from  uninspired  history? 

The  fact  of  the  early  prevalence  of  immersion  in 
the  Christian  church  is  freely  admitted.  This  seems 
to  have  been  the  mode  of  baptism  usually  practiced 
in  the  times  of  Cyprian  and  Origcn,  in  the  third  cen- 
tury of  the  Christian  era.  The  premise  of  this  argu- 
ment, therefore,  is  acknowledged  to  be  true.  Is  the 
conclusion  a  necessary  inference  from  the  premise? 


aaaaewB  am>  poi  ring.  73 

If  it  is,  the  claims  of  immersion  may  yet  stand;  and 
extensive  ;;s  the  apostacy  has  be<  11  from  the  practice 
oT  tliis  mode  of  baptism,  the  lost  and  wandering  may 
yet  be  reclaimed  and  recovered.  But  if  the  con- 
clusion is  not  legitimate,  then  immersion  is  without 
adequate  support  from  any  quartet,  and  the  immer- 
sionist  is  the  wanderer  ami  schismatic,  that  must  be 
reclaimed  to  scriptural  truth  and  Christian  duty. 

The  legitimacy  of  the  conclusion  in  favor  of  im- 
mersion in  this  argument,  depends  upon  the  fact, 
whether  it  is  possible  that  the  church  may  have 
changed  its  mode  of  baptism  in  the  interval  between 
the  third  century  of  the  Christian  era  and  the  times 
of  the  Apostles,  or  not.  If  such  a  change  is  possi- 
ble, then  this  conclusion  is  not  legitimate.  It  does 
not  conform  to  the  premise  from  which  it  is  deduced. 
Such  a  change  was  manifestly  possible.  The  dis- 
crepancy between  scriptural  and  classical  usage  in 
respect  to  the  signification  of  the  words  baptize  and 
baptism,  must  have  been  highly  favorable  to  it.  The 
church  enlarged  itself,  and  from  being  limited  to 
Jews,  and  persons  acquainted  with  Jewish  usages, 
it  spread  itself  over  the  land  of  classic  Greece, 
and  throughout  the  Roman  Empire,  where  a  know- 
ledge of  classic  Greek  usage  was  common  to  most 
literary  men.  Learning,  however,  was  confined  to 
the  few,  and  these  were  the  standards  of  opinion  for 
others. 

Biblical  learning  was  not  extensive.  When  the 
classical  scholar  of  Greece  and  Rome  read  the  New 
Testament,  he  naturally  interpreted  it  according  to 
the  most  approved  standards  of  Greek  literature,  just 
as  multitudes  of  modems,  who  ought  to  have  known 
better,  have  done.  The  consequence  was,  that  the 
same  modes  of  speech  which,  to  the  well  instructed 
6 


74  MODE   OF   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

Jew,  taught  affusion  and  sprinkling,  would  to  him 
teach  immersion,  or  plunging  in  the  water. 

Add  to  this  that  the  scriptural  meaning  of  the 
word  baptize  was  indefinite,  that  there  were  differ- 
ent modes  of  baptism  possible,  and  that  different 
modes  had  actually  been  instituted  by  Moses  with 
the  divine  sanction;  and  is  it  not  more  than  possible 
that,  under  such  circumstances,  a  change  was  made  ? 
Would  not  a  change  be  easy  and  almost  natural? 
Would  not  this  be  especially  so  in  an  age  when  learn- 
ing was  confined  to  the  few,  and  when  Biblical  learn- 
ing was  far  less  extensively  and  far  less  thoroughly 
cultivated  than  classical?  Besides  the  change  was 
plausible.  It  was  taking  nothing  away,  but  was 
rather  adding  to  the  pre-established  ordinances  of 
sprinkling  and  affusion,  on  the  supposition  that  they 
were  pre-established. 

The  manner  in  which  the  ancient  immersions  were 
performed  renders  them  suspicious.  Subjects  were 
immersed  naked  and  in  private ;  they  were  anointed 
with  oil  and  exorcised  for  the  expulsion  of  spirits; 
after  immersion,  they  were  dressed  in  a  white  uni- 
form, as  an  emblem  of  their  sanctification  or  moral 
cleansing. 

Is  this  apostolic  usage?  Is  this  the  unchanged  in- 
stitution of  Christ?  I  think  not.  Several  things  are 
unquestionably  added,  which  did  not  belong  to  Chris- 
tian baptism  as  it  was  practiced  by  the  apostles. 

Baptizing  persons  naked  and  in  private  was  an  ad- 
dition; anointing  with  oil  and  exorcising  the  subject 
for  the  expulsion  of  demons  was  a  second  addition; 
the  white  uniform  put  on  after  baptism  was  a  third 
addition.  These  additions  all  bear  testimony  to  the 
ignorance  and  superstition  of  the  times.  The  per- 
sons who  practiced  them  were  not  knavish,  interested 


IMMERSION    AND     rOURINO.  75 

impostors  and  deceivers.  They  were  misguided 
Christians.  The  fiicts  adduced  above  show  their  lia 
bility  to  I)''  misled,  and  to  what  an  extent  they  ac- 
tually were  misled,  in  respect  to  the  very  rite  in 
question.  Is  the  practice  of  these  persons  a  safe 
guide  in  favor  of  a  mode  of  baptism  not  taught  in 
the  scriptures?  Is  it  of  sufficient  authority  to  show 
that  this  mode  was  the  apostolic  one,  notwithstand- 
ing that  the  apostles  themselves  have  not  shown  it  in 
their  writings?  No.  Such  examples,  as  far  as  they 
agree  with  scriptural  evidence,  lend  some  confirma- 
tion to  it.  But  where  they  deviate  from  it  or  go  be- 
yond it,  they  amount  to  nothing. 

This  argument,  then,  fails  like  all  the  others;  and 
the  last  hope  of  immersion  is  lost. 

The  entire  argument,  therefore,  in  favor  of  im- 
mersion, when  weighed  in  the  balance  of  legitimate 
and  conclusive  reasoning,  is  found  wanting.  It  does 
not  establish  the  position  assumed,  and  contributes 
nothing  towards  establishing  it. 


BAPTISM   BY    POURING. 

$  33.  Pouring  is  a  mode  of  Christian  baptism  for 
which  some  who  discard  immersion  set  up  the  claim 
of  exclusive  scriptural  authority.  Considered  in  re- 
spect to  the  amount  of  water  made  use  of,  it  stands 
next  to  immersion.  This  mode  of  baptism  was 
practiced  at  an  early  period  in  connection  with  im- 
mersion, or  probably  in  connection  with  going  into 
the  water  to  a  considerable  depth,  so  that  some  part 
of  the  body,  and  the  lower  extremities,  were  entirely 
submerged,  without  a  complete  immersion  of  the 
whole  body. 


76  MODE    OF    CHRTSTTAN    BAPTISM. 

The  representations  handed  down  from  the  fifth 
century,  which  were  noticed  in  §  29,  are  indicative  of 
the  prevalence  of  pouring  at  that  period,  and  also  of 
the  prevalence,  at  that  time,  of  the  opinion,  that 
pouring  was  practiced  in  John's  baptism.  John  is 
represented  in  both  cases  as  pouring  water  upon  the 
Saviour.  A  similar  representation  has  been  pre- 
served, for  an  indefinite  period,  on  the  door  of  a 
church  at  Beneventura,  in  Italy.  Christ  stands  naked 
in  the  water,  with  his  lower  extremities  submerged, 
and  water  is  poured  upon  his  head  by  John,  stand- 
ing entirely  out  of  that  element,  from  a  small  cup  or 
dish.  The  picture  is  considered  as  quite  ancient, 
but  its  precise  date  is  not  known. 

A  monument  has  been  found  near  Naples,  repre- 
senting, in  sculpture,  the  baptism  of  Argilulphus  and 
Theolinda,  King  and  Queen  of  the  Longobardi,  who 
occupied  Beneventura  in  the  sixth  century.  The 
sculpture  was  produced  in  the  latter  part  of  the  sixth 
or  beginning  of  the  seventh  century.  The  King  and 
Queen  are  represented  as  standing  naked  in  a  bath- 
ing vessel,  which  is  large  enough  in  circumference 
for  both  of  them  to  stand  up  together  in  it.  They 
stand  in  a  stooping  posture.  The  top  of  the  vessel 
does  not  quite  come  up  to  their  middle.  Water  is 
poured  upon  them  from  a  pitcher  by  a  man  in  a  mili- 
tary habit,  who  stands  by  the  side  of  the  vessel. 

On  the  same  monument  is  an  engraving  repre- 
senting a  person  kneeling  and  in  prayer  by  a  bathing 
vessel.  The  bathing  vessel  is  between  one  and  two 
feet  in  height,  that  is,  about  one  fourth  the  height  of 
the  worshipper,  and  of  about  the  same  diameter  as 
height.  In  another  part  of  the  picture,  persons  are 
represented  as  kneeling  on  the  ground,  and  receiving 


[MMEB8I0N     \M>    POIKING.  J  / 

baptism  by  water  being  poured  upon  them  from  a 
pitcher. 

Other  representations,  both  in  sculpture  and  en- 
graving, represent  baptisms  at  periods  not  far  from 
the  time  above  referred  to;  and  some  of  them,  at  un- 
certain periods,  by  pouring. 

The  antiquity  of  this  mode  of  baptism  is  an  evi- 
dence  in  its  favor,  But  this  alone  is  not  sufficient 
to  establish  it  as  of  scriptural  authority.  It  is  al- 
ledged,  however,  in  favor  of  pouring,  that,  in  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Divine  Spirit  is  de- 
scribed as  being  poured  out.  Acts  2:  10,  17;  10: 
45.     Joel  2:28. 

The  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  is  evidently  the  baptism  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  mentioned  Acts  1:5,  as  to  take  place  not 
many  days  from  that  time.  But  it  is  too  slender  a 
ground  on  which  to  establish  a  theory  in  respect  to 
the  scriptural  mode  of  baptism  with  water;  especial- 
ly as  none  of  the  Mosaic  baptisms  appear  to  have 
been  administered  in  that  mode. 

The  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  itself  a 
figurative  designation  of  the  Spirit's  influence  on  the 
minds  of  men,  and  not  a  proper  object  of  emblem- 
atical representation  in  baptism.  Baptism  should 
represent  the  effect  of  the  Spirit's  influence,  which 
is  cleansing,  not  the  mode  of  that  influence.  The 
mode  of  the  Spirit's  influence  is  not  explained  in  the 
scriptures,  and  is  not  a  legitimate  object  of  symboli- 
cal representations. 

Pouring,  therefore,  is  not  adequately  sustained  as 
the  scriptural  mode  of  Christian  baptism.  The 
scriptural  evidence  on  which  it  rests  is  fanciful  and 
indecisive,  and  the  historical  evidence  in  its  favor  is 
drawn  from  too  late  a  period,  and  accompanied  by  too 


78  MODE    OF    CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

many  questionable  circumstances,  to  be  entitled  to 
any  great  confidence  as  an  indication  of  apostolic 
usage.  These  circumstances  have  been  adverted  to 
in  considering  the  historical  argument  for  immer- 
sion. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

MODE   OF   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. -AF- 
FUSION  AND   SPRINKLING. 

Introductory  Remarks. 

$  34.  Having  disposed  of  immersion  and  pouring, 
affusion  and  sprinkling  remain  to  be  considered.  If 
any  particular  mode  of  Christian  baptism  is  taught 
in  the  scriptures,  it  must  be  one  or  both  of  these. 
If  one  or  both  of  these  are  not  taught  in  the  scrip- 
tures, we  shall  be  compelled  to  conclude  that  no 
mode  of  baptism  is  enjoined,  but  that  the  church  of 
Christ  is  left  to  its  discretion  in  this  matter,  and  may 
lawfully  adopt  one  mode  or  other,  as  fancy  or  caprice 
may  dictate.  This,  in  the  opinion  of  some,  is  the 
true  state  of  the  case.  If  it  is  a  fact  that  there  is 
no  scriptural  mode  of  Christian  baptism,  and  that  the 
subject  is  left  indefinite,  to  be  settled  and  altered  as 
the  feelings  and  judgment  of  men  may  dictate,  the 
prospect  of  harmony  and  agreement  on  the  gtibject, 
among  the  different  branches  of  the  Christian  church. 
must  be  very  unpromising.     But  if  there  is  a  well 


MFlsioN   AM)  IFRINKLIHG.  79 


established  seiiptural  mode  of  administering  this  rite. 
one  thai  can  be  clearly  exhibited  and  satisfactorily 
i i i i « 1 .  retoodi  and  if  the  evidences  by  which  this  ap- 
pears arc  within  the  comprehension  of  common 
minds,  then  existing  delusions  may  yet  be  dispelled, 
and  a  general  agreement  be  attained  smeng  mankind 
<>n  this  subject  As,  therefore,  other  modes  are 
found  wanting  in  scriptural  authority,  it  is  a  matter 
of  great  interest  to  know  whether  those  of  affusion 
and  sprinkling  can  be  fully  sustained. 


Specification  of  the  arguments  in  favor  of  Affusion 
and  Sprinkling. 

$35.  1.  The  modes  of  the  Mosaic  baptisms  were 
principally  by  affusion  and  sprinkling. 

2.  The  Jewish  traditionary  baptism  before  meals, 
consisted  of  a  ceremonial  washing  of  the  hands. 

3.  The  baptism  of  the  Israelites  at  the  time  of 
crossing  the  Red  Sea,  under  the  direction  of  Moses, 
was  by  sprinkling. 

4.  It  was  predicted  that  Christ  should  cleanse 
mankind  from  sin,  under  the  imagery  of  sprinkling. 

5.  Circumstantial  evidence  pertaining  to  the  mode 
of  Christian  baptism  is  in  favor  of  affusion  and  sprink- 
ling. 

6.  Affusion  and  sprinkling  are  more  suitable  than 
immersion,  to  serve  as  modes  of  Christian  baptism, 
on  account  of  their  greater  significancy  as  modes  of 
purification,  and  their  greater  convenience. 

7.  The  servants  of  God  under  the  New  Testa- 
ment dispensation,  are  described  as  being  sealed  in 
their  foreheads. 


80  MODE   OF   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


First  argument  in  favor  of  Affusion  and  Sprinkling, 

$36.  The  modes  of  the  Mosaic  baptisms  were 
principally  affusion  and  sprinkling.  Christian  bap- 
tism, being  subsequently  instituted,  and  no  specifica- 
tion of  the  mode  of  its  administration  being  put  on 
record,  ought  to  be  administered  in  the  same  mode 
as  the  previously  instituted  baptisms;  therefore,  it 
ought  to  be  administered  by  affusion  or  sprinkling, 
or  by  affusion  and  sprinkling. 

The  principal  Mosaic  baptisms  were  of  frequent 
occurrence.  They  were  often  repeated  in  the  life 
of  every  true  Israelite,  and  consequently  must  have 
been  familiar  to  the  Jews.  If  there  is  no  injunction 
of  a  different  mode  in  the  scriptures,  we  are  bound 
to  adopt  the  modes  previously  established,  and  of  un- 
questionable divine  authority,  rather  than  to  introduce 
others  of  man's  invention. 

The  propriety  of  this  is  obvious.  Authorized 
modes  and  established  precedents  are  of  the  nature 
of  general  laws.  Deliberative  bodies  are  governed 
by  them  in  the  transaction  of  business,  courts  are 
governed  by  them  in  the  decision  of  cases,  both  in 
respect  to  property  and  life;  and,  according  to  them, 
kings  rule  and  princes  decree  justice. 

Affusion  and  sprinkling  were  modes  of  baptism  in 
actual  use  at  the  time  of  the  institution  of  Christian 
baptism,  and  they  continued  to  be  used  by  divine 
authority  in  the  Mosaic  baptisms,  till  some  years  af- 
ter the  crucifixion. 

These  divinely  authorized  modes  of  former  and 
to  some  extent  contemporary  baptisms,  are  a  rule  for 
our  direction  in  respect  to  Christian  baptism,  onless 
we  have  specific   information  enjoining  a  different 


1FFUSI0N   ami    simunki.im;.  81 

mode.  Rut  we  have  no  such  information;  therefore, 
we  ought  to  baptize  by  affusion  and  sprinkling 
These  modes  are  actually  enjoined  by  precedents, 
which,  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case  arc  laws, 
and  from  which  we  may  not  lawfully  depart  without 
divine  permission. 


Second  argument  in  favor  of  Affusion  and  Sprink- 
ling. 

$37.  The  Jewish  traditionary  baptism  which  was 
practiced  statedly  before  meals,  being  a  washing  of 
the  hands  for  the  purpose  of  ceremonial  cleansing, 
is  an  evidence  of  Jewish  provincial  usage,  in  respect 
to  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  words  baptize  and  bap- 
tism, which  favors  affusion,  or  the  application  of 
water  with  the  hand,  as  the  appropriate  mode  of 
Christian  baptism. 

There  is  an  allusion  to  this  in  Luke  11:  37,  38. 
"And  as  he  (Jesus  Christ)  spake,  a  certain  Pharisee 
invited  him  to  dine  with  him.  And  he  went  in  and 
sat  down  to  meat.  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it 
he  marvelled  (or  expressed  surprise,)  that  he  was  not 
first  baptized  before  dinner." 

The  verb  which  I  have  translated  baptized,  in  this 
passage,  is  incorrectly  rendered  washed  in  the  com- 
mon English  bible.  It  is  the  same  which  is  used  in 
all  places  where  Christian  baptism  is  spoken  of,  and 
it  is  never  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  denote  a 
secular  washing  of  any  kind.  The  rite  referred  to 
in  this  passage  is,  beyond  all  doubt,  a  baptism.  The 
observance  of  it  was  so  general  among  the  Jews, 
and  it  was  deemed  so  necessary,  that  the  Pharisee 


82  MODE   OF   CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

wondered  that  Christ  did  not  perform  it  upon  himself 
previous  to  sitting  down  to  dinner. 

In  Matt.  15 :  2,  and  Mark  7 :  2,  we  are  informed 
that  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  found  fault  because 
the  disciples  of  Christ  did  not  perform  a  ceremonial 
washing  of  their  hands  previous  to  partaking  of  their 
common  meals.  They  denominate  this  neglect  a 
transgression  of  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  and  refer 
to  the  hands  of  the  disciples  as  being  ceremonially 
defiled  on  account  of  it. 

Here  we  have,  in  one  case,  a  baptism  before  meals 
mentioned  by  that  title,  and  in  the  other,  a  sacred 
washing  of  the  hands  as  a  rite  of  ceremonial  purifi- 
cation. We  have  also  proved,  in  former  sections, 
that  the  Jewish  purifications  were  baptisms.  The 
purifications,  therefore,  referred  to  in  Matthew  and 
Mark,  and  the  baptism  referred  to  in  Luke,  are  one 
and  the  same  thing.  This  is  evident  from  the  fol- 
lowing considerations : 

1.  Purifications  are  baptisms.  The  washing  of 
the  hands  referred  to  in  Matthew  and  Mark  are  puri- 
fications; therefore,  they  are  baptisms.  If  they  are 
baptisms  they  are  baptisms  practiced  statedly  before 
meals,  and  therefore  are  rites  of  the  kind  denomi- 
nated baptism  in  Luke  11:  38. 

2.  The  supposition  that  the  washing  of  the  hands 
as  a  ceremonial  purification,  mentioned  in  Matt.  15: 
2,  and  in  Mark  7:  2,  is  not  a  baptism,  leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  Jews  practiced  two  religious  rites 
of  purification  before  meals;  one  of  which  consisted 
in  the  washing  of  the  hands,  and  the  other,  accord- 
ing to  the  hypothesis  of  immersionists,  in  the  immer- 
sion of  the  entire  body. 

Is  this  a  fact  ?  Were  there  two  such  rites  preva- 
lent among  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ?     Has 


AFFUSION  AND   SPBINKJLXWO.  83 

immersion,  before  meals,  ever  prevailed  in  any  coun- 
try or  in  any  ;><,re?  These  questions  admit  of  an 
answer  only  in  the  negative. 

The  uniform  practice  of  immersion,  before  meals, 
as  a  religious  rite  of  purification,  or  for  any  other 
purpose,  has  never  prevailed  in  any  age  or  country, 
and  cannot  prevail  It  is  a  yoke  which  is  too  heavy 
to  be  borne.  It  would  be  an  oppressive  yoke  in  any 
country,  and  at  all  seasons  of  the  year.  In  such  a 
country  as  Palestine,  and  in  the  winter  season,  it 
would,  in  respect  to  a  large  proportion  of  the  inhab- 
itants, be  utterly  impracticable. 

The  hypothesis  of  immersion,  before  meals,  as  a 
customary  rite  of  religious  purification  among  the 
Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  previously,  is  inad- 
missible on  account  of  its  impracticability,  as  well  as 
for  the  entire  want  of  any  evidence  whatever,  in  its 
favor.  It  is  a  mere  figment  of  imagination,  formed 
to  sustain  a  theory,  and  undeserving  of  the  least  con- 
fidence. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  baptism  referred  to 
in  Luke  11:  38,  where  the  Pharisee  wondered  that 
Christ  was  not  first  baptized  before  dinner;  and  the 
washing  of  the  hands  before  meals,  referred  to  in 
Matt  15:  2,  and  Mark  7:  2,  are  one  and  the  same 
religious  rite.  Consequently,  persons  were  baptised 
by  the  washing  of  the  hands;  and  the  appropriation 
of  the  words  baptize  and  baptism,  to  denote  this 
washing*  was  according  to  the  Jewish  provincial 
usage  of  those  times. 

Hence  the  appropriation  of  the  same  words,  with- 
out definition,  to  denote  Christian  baptism,  indicates 
that  this  was  a  religious  washing,  not  an  immersion. 
A  ceremonial  washing  is  performed  by  anusion. 


84  MODE   OF   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

Third  argument  in  favor  of  Affusion  and  Sprink- 
ling. 

$38.  The  allusion  to  the  wetting  of  the  Israelites 
with  rain  on  the  occasion  of  their  being  led  across 
the  Red  Sea,  by  Moses,  on  dry  land,  and  to  their 
being  wet  by  the  Sea  on  that  occasion,  as  baptisms, 
by  Paul,  proves  that  this  word  appropriately  denoted 
sprinkling  according  to  Jewish  usage,  and  is  an  evi- 
dence in  favor  of  sprinkling,  as  an  appropriate  mode 
of  Christian  baptism. 

This  allusion  is  contained  in  1  Cor.  10:  1,  2. 
u  Moreover  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye  should  be 
ignorant  that  our  fathers  were  all  under  the  cloud, 
and  all  passed  through  the  sea,  and  all  were  baptized 
to  Moses  by  the  cloud  and  the  sea." 

I  have  adopted  the  rendering  by  the  cloud  and  by 
the  sea,  instead  of  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  for 
reasons  set  forth  in  $  25. 

By  is  the  proper  rendering  of  the  preposition  here 
used  in  the  original,  when  it  stands  before  nouns 
denoting  instruments,  agents,  or  means.  The  nouns 
which  here  follow  it,  denote  means.  The  baptisms 
were  by  means  of  the  cloud,  and  by  means  of  the 
sea. 

How  the  Israelites  wrere  baptized  by  means  of  the 
cloud,  is  clearly  shown  by  Ps.  77:  16-20.  "The 
waters  saw  thee,  O  God,  the  waters  saw  thee  and 
were  afraid.  The  depths,  also,  were  troubled.  The 
clouds  poured  out  water.  The  skies  sent  out  a 
sound.  Thine  arrows,  also,  went  abroad;  the  \ 
of  thy  thunder  was  in  heaven.  The  lightnings  light- 
ened the  world.  The  earth  trembled  and  shook. 
Thy  way  is  in  the  sea,  and  thy  path  in  the  great  w  i- 


&FFUBION    am»    BFUNXLUfO.  Rf. 

tors,  and  thy  footsteps  are  not  known.  Thou  leddest 
thy  people  like  :i  flock,  by  the  hand  of  Moses  and 
Aaron.91 

It  appears  from  this  description,  that  the  passage 
of  the  Red  ^(,a  was  accompanied  with  the  fall  of 
rain.  Clouds  arc  spoken  of  as  pouring  out  rain. 
The  mode  of  the  baptism  of  the  Israelites  by  the 
cloud,  therefore,  must  have  been  by  sprinkling,  the 
universal  mode  of  the  pouring  out  of  water  from 
clouds. 

How  they  were  baptized  by  the  sea.  remains  to  l». 
inquired  into.  This  could  not  have  been  by  immer- 
sion, because  we  arc  expressly  told,  Ex.  14:  21,  32, 
"That  the  Lord  caused  the  sea  to  go  back,  by  a 
strong  east  wind,  all  that  night,  and  made  th<'  sea  (In- 
land, and  the  waters  were  divided.  And  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  went  into  the  midst  of  the  sea  upon 
the  dry  ground,  and  the  waters  were  a  wall  to  them 
on  their  right  hand,  and  on  their  left." 

The  Israelites  were  not,  therefore,  immersed  in 
the  Red  Sea.  The  apostle,  however,  tells  us,  that 
they  were  baptized  by  it.  How  was  this  baptism  ad- 
ministered? The  mode  of  the  baptism  of  the  Isra- 
elites by  the  Red  Sea,  is  not  explained.  It  was 
evidently,  however,  not  an  immersion,  for  the  theory 
of  the  immersion  of  the  Israelites  in  the  Red  Sea  at 
the  time  of  their  crossing  it,  would  be  in  contradic- 
tion to  the  Mosaic  narrative. 

Amid  the  fury  of  the  storm  and  wind  which 
accompanied  the  passage  of  the  Israelites  on  this 
occasion,  and  with  the  sea  standing  as  a  wall  on  their 
right  hand  and  left,  it  is  not  improbable  that  they 
were  sprinkled  with  its  spray.  If  so,  their  baptism, 
by  means  of  the  sea  as  well  as  that  by  means  of  the 
cloud,  was  administered  by  sprinkling. 


Ob  MODE   OF   CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

According  to  New  Testament  usage,  therefore, 
sprinkling  is  a  legitimate  mode  of  baptism. 


Fourth  argument  in  favor  of  Affusion  and  Sprink- 
ling. 

$39.  The  prediction,  that  Christ  should  purify 
men  by  sprinkling,  which  must  be  presumed  to  be 
fulfilled,  by  his  administration  of  the  Gospel  dispen- 
sation, is  an  evidence  in  favor  of  sprinkling  as  an 
appropriate  mode  of  Christian  baptism,  and  conse- 
quently, the  scriptural  mode. 

Isa.  52:  15,  "So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations.'" 
Ezek.  36 :  25,  26,  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean.  From  all  your 
filthiness,  and  from  all  your  evils,  will  I  cleanse  you. 
A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit 
will  I  put  within  you." 

The  first  of  the  above  passages  relates  ■  directly 
to  Christ,  and  declares  what  he  was  to  do  under  the 
Gospel  dispensation.  The  second  passage  is  a  dec- 
laration of  God,  as  to  what  he  will  do  during  the 
same  period. 

If  baptism  is  performed  by  sprinkling,  it  is  a  liter- 
al and  beautiful  fulfilment  of  these  predictions.  By 
means  of  this  rite,  Christ  is  now  sprinkling  many  na- 
tions, and  ceremonially  cleansing  them  from  all  their 
filthiness  and  from  all  their  idols. 

If  Christian  baptism  was  to  have  been  by  immer- 
sion, the  more  natural  and  more  expressive  form  of 
the  above  predictions  would  have  been,  So  shall  he 
immerse  many  nations.  Then  will  I  immerse  you  in 
clean  water,  and  ye  shall  be  clean,  Sfc. 


Afpwui  ami  mumiiw  87 

But  the  I  Inly  Spirit  made  choice  of  the  term 
sprinf:h\  rather  th;in  immerse,  to  describe  this 
cleansing.     Why  then  should  he  not  be  supposed  to 

have  made  choice  of  the  mode  of  sprinkling,  rather 
than  that  of  immersion,  to  represent  the  same  in 
Gospel  times?  If  sprinkling  is  an  appropriate  and 
expressive  figure  hy  which  to  represent  the  cleansing 
of  men,  as  that  cleansing  was  foretold,  it  is  an  equally 
appropriate  and  expressive  symbol  by  which  to  repre- 
sent that  cleansing,  when  it  is  actually  perform* <1. 


Fifth  argument  in  favor  of  Affusion  and  Sprink- 
ling. 

§  40.  Circumstances  attending  the  administration 
of  Christian  baptism  by  the  apostles,  in  several  in- 
stances, are  favorable  to  the  doctrine  of  afiiision  and 
sprinkling,  and  unfavorable  to  that  of  immersion. 

In  all  cases  where  direct  testimony  is  not  decisive, 
or  where  it  is  difficult  to  be  obtained  to  such  an  ex- 
tent as  is  desired,  circumstantial  evidence  is  naturally 
resorted  to,  and  is  often  highly  serviceable  to  the 
cause  of  truth  and  justice.  Many  an  important  case 
that  would  otherwise  be  doubtful,  is  rendered  clear 
by  this  means;  and  many  an  important  truth,  that 
would  otherwise  elude  the  grasp  of  the  human  un- 
derstanding, is  by  this  means  reached  and  secured. 

Circumstances  cannot  lie.  Language  may  change, 
and  the  customary  signification  of  words  in  one  age 
may  be  lost  in  another,  but  circumstances  do  not 
vary.  They  speak  the  same  language,  and  sustain 
the  same  relations  to  things  on  which  they  attend,  in 
distant  and  romote  periods,  which  they  spoke  and 
sustained  at  the  time  of  their  occurrence. 


88  MODE   OF   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

N6ne  of  the  circumstances  of  the  apostolic  bap- 
tisms, as  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  indicate 
immersion.  The  only  one  which  can  be  supposed, 
by  any  one,  to  indicate  immersion,  is  that  of  the 
going  to  and  from  the  water  by  Philip  and  the  Eunuch 
related  in  Acts  8 :  38,  39,  improperly  translated  in 
the  common  bible,  going  into  the  water  and  out  of  it. 
See  $  30. 

Several  circumstances  relating  to  the  Apostolic 
baptisms,  are  indicative  of  the  more  easy  and  con- 
venient modes  of  affusion  and  sprinkling. 

1.  The  number  converted  and  baptized  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  Acts  2:  41,  "Then  they  that  gladly 
received  his  word,  were  baptized;  and  the  same  day, 
there  were  added  to  them,  about  three  thousand 
souls." 

It  appears  from  the  context,  that  Peter  began  his 
public  discourse  about  9  o'clock,  A.  M.  After  this 
hour,  he  preached  the  gospel  to  the  conviction  and 
conversion  of  about  three  thousand  persons.  These 
persons  were  subsequently  instructed  sufficiently  to 
receive  baptism,  their  professions  of  faith  taken,  and 
their  baptism  actually  administered  on  the  same  day. 
All  this  was  done  in  a  decent  and  orderly  manner. 
For  God  is  a  God  of  order;  and  it  was  done  under 
the  direction  of  his  Spirit. 

We  do  not  say  that  the  immersion  of  these  thou- 
sands, within  the  limited  time  allowed  for  their  bap- 
tism, could  not  have  been  performed  by  the  apostles 
and  their  assistants;  but  we  are  clearly  authorized  to 
consider  it  extremely  improbable,  from  the  fact  of  the 
great  number  baptized,  and  the  short  time  allowed 
for  their  baptism,  that  this  was  performed  by  immer- 
sion. The  apostles  do  not  seem  to  have  been  sur- 
rounded by  a  great  number  of  fellow-laborers  at  this 


Al'ITHON    AM)    VJUMKUS9.  s-> 

lime,     li  not  alone  they  were  attended  by  com;' 

tivch  i  i  In  a  meeting  for  the  most  important 
business,  bekl  h  short  time  before,  only  a  hundred 
and  twenty  attended.  But  few  if  any  of  these  could 
have   been  qualified  to  administer  baptisms.    Yet 

thousand  baptisms  were  administered,  and  three 
thousand  communicants  received  to  the  church  in 
the  little  portion  of  that  day  which  was  not  taken  up 
with  other  religious  exercises.  Affusion  and  sprink- 
ling take  much  less  time  than  immersion.  It  is  pro- 
bable, therefore,  from  the  greatness  of  the  number, 
and  the  shortness  of  the  time  that  could  have  been 
had  for  their  baptism,  that  they  were  baptized  by 
allusion  and  sprinkling. 

2.  Saul  arose  and  was  baptized,  after  he  had 
been  three  days  without  food,  and  also  without  sight. 
The  inspired  narrative  informs  us,  Acts  9:  17,  18, 
19,  that  Annanias  went,  by  divine  command,  into  the 
house  where  he  wras,  laid  his  hands  on  him,  restored 
him  to  sight,  and  communicated  to  him  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Upon  the  laying  on  of  his  hands,  "  there 
fell  immediately  from  his  eyes,  as  it  were,  scales, 
and  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and  arose  and  was 
baptized.  And  when  he  had  received  food  he  was 
strengthened." 

Here  is  no  going  to  the  water,  and  no  notice  of 
any  of  the  conveniences  for  immersion. 

A  blind  man,  weak  from  three  days'  anxiety  and 
fasting,  receives  his  sight,  arises  from  his  couch,  that 
is,  assumes  the  standing  posture,  and  is  baptized. 

These  circumstances  agree  well  with  affusion  and 
sprinkling;  but  they  do  not  agree  with  immersion. 

3.  The  administration  of  baptism,  in  the  night, 
in  a  prison,  indicates  affusion  and  sprinkling.  Paul 
and  Silas  had  been  thrust  into  the  inner  prison  at 

7 


90  MODE   OF    CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

Philippi.  The  doors  of  the  prison  were  opened  at 
midnight  by  an  earthquake.  Paul  and  Silas  preached 
the  Gospel  with  effect  to  the  jailer  and  his  family. 
The  jailer's  family  appear,  as  is  usual,  to  have  occu- 
pied apartments  within  the  prison.  After  the  con- 
version of  the  jailer,  he  took  the  prisoners,  Acts  16: 
33-35,  "  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed 
their  stripes,  and  was  baptized,  and  all  his,  straight- 
way; and  when  he  had  brought  them  into  his  house, 
he  set  food  before  them  and  rejoiced,  believing  in 
God,  with  all  his  house.  And  when  it  was  day,  the 
magistrates  sent  officers,  saying,  let  these  men  go." 

The  preaching  was  performed  after  midnight. 
The  jailer  and  his  family  were  converted,  sufficiently 
instructed  to  receive  baptism,  and  actually  baptized 
before  morning;  and  though  the  jailer  had  brought 
Paul  and  Silas  to  his  own  appartment,  it  appears  from 
their  subsequent  declaration  that  they  would  not 
leave  the  prison,  unless  the  proper  officers  came  and 
fetched  them  out,  that  they  could  not  yet  have  left 
the  prison. 

In  these  unpropitious  circumstances,  and  before 
day,  the  jailer  and  his  family  were  baptized.  We 
cannot  say  with  certainty  that  their  immersion  was 
impossible,  but  it  certainly  was  improbable.  All  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  harmonize  much  better 
with  the  doctrine  of  affusion  and  sprinkling  than 
with  that  of  immersion. 

Sixth  argument  in  favor  of  Affusion  and  Sprink- 
ling. 

§41.  Affusion  and  sprinkling  are  more  mutable 
than  immersion  to  serve  as  modes  of  baptism,  on  the 


UBSDX    AM)   srRIMvLOG.  91 

tnd  of  their  greater  convenience  and  fitness  for 
the  purpose  intended  to  be  attained. 

God's  appointments  arc  all  founded  in  fitness  and 
propriety.  Bf  some  modes  of  baptism  have  a  greater 
fitness  than  others,  for  the  purposes  intended  to  be 
attained  by  this  rite,  that  fitness  is  a  presumptive  evi- 
dence in  their  favor  as  being  the  modes  of  God's 
choice  and  appointment. 

Affusion  is  the  most  expressive  and  significant 
mode  possible  of  applying  water  for  ceremonial 
purification,  or  as  a  symbol  of  internal  and  moral 
cleansing;  because  it  is  the  usual  mode  of  physical 
cleansing.  When  we  wash  ourselves  for  purposes  of 
physical  cleansing,  we  usually  apply  the  water  by 
affusion.  It  would  appear  most  fit,  therefore,  to 
adopt  this  mode  of  applying  water  in  a  rite  intended 
to  represent  moral  cleansing-  The  most  usual  and 
effectual  mode  of  physical  cleansing  is  the  most  ex- 
pressive sign  of  moral  cleansing.  Affusion,  there- 
fore, is,  of  all  modes  of  applying  water,  best  adapted 
to  be  used  in  baptism  as  a  symbol  of  moral  cleans- 
ing. 

A  rite  designed  for  universal  application  ought  to 
be  such  as  can  be  administered  at  all  times,  in  all 
places,  and  to  all  classes  of  subjects.  Baptism  is 
designed  for  universal  application.  Therefore,  a 
proper  mode  of  baptism  is  one  which  can  be  ad- 
ministered in  all  places,  at  all  times,  and  to  all  classes 
of  subjects.  Affusion  and  sprinkling  have  these 
properties;  immersion  has  not.  There  are  places 
where  immersion  cannot  be  administered :  there  are 
times  and  seasons  of  the  year  when  it  cannot  be  ad- 
ministered without  great  difficulty  and  danger  to 
numerous  subjects.  There  are  persons  in  a  certain 
condition  and  state  of  health,  who  are  the  proper 


92  MODE   OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

subjects  of  baptism,  to  whom  immersion  cannot  be 
conveniently  and  safely  administered  at  any  time. 

Affusion  and  sprinkling,  therefore,  have  greatly 
the  advantage  of  immersion,  on  the  ground  of  con- 
venience and  fitness  for  the  purpose  intended  to  be 
accomplished  by  baptism.  This  convenience  and 
fitness  are  evidences  in  their  favor. 


Seventh  argument  in  favor  of  Affusion  and  SprinJc- 


\  42.  The  servants  of  God,  under  the  New  Tes- 
tament dispensation,  are  described  as  being  sealed 
in  their  foreheads.  Rev.  7:  3.  "An  angel  cried 
with  a  loud  voice,'1  to  agents  who  had  power  to  hurt 
the  earth,  "  saying,  hurt  not  the  earth,  neither  the  sea, 
nor  the  trees,  till  we  have  sealed  the  servants  of  our 
God  in  their  foreheads.'"  The  wicked  are  described 
as  "  those  who  have  not  the  seal  of  God  in  their 
foreheads."     Rev.  9 :  4. 

The  word  translated  seal  in  the  latter  of  the  pas- 
sages above  referred  to,  is  the  same  which  is  applied 
to  describe  circumcision  in  Rom.  4:  11,  where  it  is 
called  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  or  more 
properly  translated,  a  seal  of  justification  by  faith. 

Baptism  has  been  shown  to  be  the  sealing  ordin- 
ance of  the  Christian  church.  It  seals  the  baptized 
as  the  Lord's.  It  is  the  initiatory  rite  administered 
to  every  adult  convert  on  his  introduction  into  the 
church,  and  is  the  divinely  appointed  seal  of  Chris- 
tian discipleship. 

To  seal  the  servants  of  God,  therefore,  is  to  bap- 
tize them;  and  to  seal  them  in  their  foreheads,  is  to 
baptize  them  in  their  foreheads.     But  if  the  seal  of 


AFFBSZON    AM)    si'illXK!  '  '.)3 

baptism  is  applied  to  (he  forehead,  as  is  expressly 
stated,  it  cannot  be  by  immersion,  and  must  naturally 

be  by  allusion  and  sprinkling.  Immersion  applies 
this  Bed  to  the  whole  body,  affusion  and  sprinkling, 
to  the  forehead. 


Conclusion  in  favor  of  Affusion  and  Sprinkling. 

§  43.  On  the  whole,  it  appears  clearly  that  affu- 
sion and  sprinkling  are  the  scriptural  modes  of  Chris- 
tian baptism,  and  the  only  mode  which  the  scriptures 
sanction.  The  conclusion  in  favor  of  aflusion  and 
sprinkling  is  sustained  by  several  independent  argu- 
ments, each  of  which  is  sufficient  of  itself  for  the 
support  of  that  conclusion. 

To  overthrow  this  conclusion,  it  is  not  enough  to 
show  that  some  one  or  more  of  the  arguments  which 
sustain  it  is  inconclusive.  It  must  be  shown  that  no 
one  of  them  is  conclusive,  and  that  all  together  are 
not  so.  If  this  can  be  done,  the  conclusion  can  be 
overthrown;  otherwise  not. 

If  the  arguments  adduced  in  favor  of  afiusion  and 
sprinkling  are  not  conclusive,  it  must  be  on  one  or 
other  of  these  two  grounds.  Either  that  the  premise 
is  false  or  uncertain,  or  that  the  conclusion  is  not  a 
logical  deduction  from  the  premise,  in  cases  where 
the  promise  is  admitted  to  be  true.  Which  of  the 
premises  in  the  foregoing  arguments  is  false  or  un- 
certain? And  if  the  premises  are  true,  which  of  the 
conclusions  are  not  legitimately  inferred  from  their 
premises?  Let  the  reader  examine  and  ascertain, 
and  having  ascertained  let  him  show. 

If  this  deficiency  cannot  be  shown,  the  conclusion 
must  be  admitted  to  be  true,  and  to  be  as  well  en- 


94  MODE   OF   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

titled  to  universal  adoption  as  the  demonstrated  truths 
of  geometry  and  algebra. 

But  if  the  foregoing  arguments  should  be  found, 
on  critical  examination,  to  be  defective,  and  not  to 
establish  the  conclusion  as  true,  it  will  remain  to  be 
inquired  whether  they  render  it  probable.  Many 
things  can  be  proved  to  be  probable  which  cannot  be 
proved  to  be  true ;  and  the  higher  degrees  of  proba- 
bility, in  cases  where  certainty  cannot  be  attained, 
have  all  the  practical  importance  of  certainty  itself. 

Truth  is  the  highest  principle  of  action  to  rational 
beings,  and  is  always  to  be  attained  where  the  at- 
tainment of  it  is  possible.  But  where  truth  cannot 
be  attained  with  certainty,  we  are  bound  to  be  gov- 
erned by  probabilities.  In  such  cases,  strong  proba- 
bilities are  as  valid  principles  of  action  as  truth  itself; 
and  our  obligations  to  submit  to  them  are  as  impera- 
tive. 

If,  therefore,  affusion  and  sprinkling  have  not  been 
proved  with  certainty  to  have  been  the  scriptural 
modes  of  baptism,  has  not  this  conclusion  been  ren- 
dered probable  ?  Has  it  not  been  rendered  highly 
probable  ?  If  it  is  only  probable,  we  ought  to  adopt 
affusion  and  sprinkling  in  preference  to  modes  which 
are  not  probable.  If  it  is  highly  probable,  we  ought 
to  adopt  it  in  preference  to  modes  which  are  in  a  less 
degree  probable,  and  still  more  in  preference  to  those 
which  are  in  no  degree  probable. 

The  highest  degree  of  probability  is  next  to  cer- 
tainty, and  does  not  differ  from  it  to  any  appreciable 
extent.  So  far  as  all  practical  purposes  are  con- 
cerned, it  does  not  differ  from  certainty  at  all. 

If  the  arguments  adduced  in  favor  of  affusion  and 
sprinkling,  therefore,  fall  short  of  establishing  the 
conclusion  deduced  from  them  as  certain,  and 


MUMo.X    AND    SFR0KIXKO.  SKI 

establish  it  as  probable,  the  degree  of  probability 
which  they  establish  will  require  to  be  estimated. 
If  the  probability  established  is  of  a  high  degree,  the 
conclusion  will  possess  a  proportionally  high  value. 
If  the  degree  of  probability  is  indefinitely  high,  the 
lusion  will  be  an  indefinitely  near  approximation 
to  certainty,  and  will  not  be  inferior  to  certainty  in  a 
practical  point  of  view. 

The  value  of  a  certain  or  even  of  a  highly  proba- 
ble conclusion  in  favor  of  affusion  and  sprinkling,  is 
immense.  It  is  a  basis  of  union  and  agreement 
among  Christians,  and  will  ultimately  bring  them  to- 
gether. 

A  conclusive  argument  has  all  the  effect  of  a  dis- 
covery. It  may  be  disputed  and  opposed  for  a  time ; 
but  it  will,  by  and  by,  assert  its  claims  with  effect. 
When  a  truth  is  once  discovered  and  demonstrated, 
it  becomes  the  property  of  the  human  race,  and  at- 
tains a  gradually  increasing  diffusion,  until  it  is  gen- 
erally acknowledged. 


A  true  estimate  of  Immersion. 

§  44.  If  immersion  is  an  unscriptural  mode  of 
baptism,  it  ought  not  to  be  persisted  in.  It  does  not 
follow  that  persons  are  unbaptized  because  they  are 
baptized  in  unscriptural  modes.  An  unscriptural 
mode  of  baptism  may  be  baptism,  just  as  an  unscrip- 
tural mode  of  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  may 
be  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  in  either  case  there  can 
be  no  reasonable  objection  to  keeping  as  close  as 
practicable  to  scriptural  modes.  The  nearest  practi- 
cable approximation  to  the  scriptural  mode  of  re- 
ceiving the  Lord's  Supper  is  to  receive  it  in  the 


96 


MODE    OF   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


sitting  posture,  the  usual  posture  in  which  we  receive 
our  meals.  The  apostles,  in  the  first  instance,  re- 
ceived it  reclining,  the  usual  posture  of  receiving 
set  meals  at  that  time.  The  customary  posture  of 
receiving  our  usual  meals  having  changed,  there  is  a 
propriety  in  deviating  from  a  scriptural  mode  which 
had  no  significancy,  but  was  entirely  accidental,  and  in 
adopting  the  more  convenient  one  of  sitting. 

This  change  has  respect  to  a  mode  which  is  acci- 
dental and  insignificant,  and  is  adopted  only  because 
it  was  in  agreement  with  the  usages  of  those  times. 
It  is  changed  in  order  to  bring  it  into  agreement  with 
the  usages  of  modem  times. 

But  no  such  reasons  exist  for  changing  the  scrip- 
tural mode  of  Christian  baptism.  Sprinkling  and 
affusion  were  not  accidental  modes  of  administering 
this  rite;  neither  are  they  without  significancy.  IVlo 
change  of  manners  has  occurred  or  can  occur  which 
will  render  these  modes  inappropriate  or  undesira- 
ble. We  are  not,  therefore,  at  liberty  to  depart  from 
them.  The  prevailing  departure  from  them  in  the 
case  of  immersion ist  churches,  is  a  violation  of  Chris- 
tian order  and  a  breach  of  Christian  duty,  which 
nothing  but  ignorance  can  palliate,  and  which  nothing 
can  justify. 

Modes  which  are  significant,  and  which  Cod  has 
established,  may  not  be  departed  from.  They  are 
as  obligatory  as  the  rites  to  which  they  appertain. 

Immersion,  however,  is  a  valid  baptism;  because, 
though  not  a  scriptural  mode  of  administering  this 
ordinance,  it  is  used  in  the  belief  that  it  is  scrip- 
tural, and  is  administered  for  the  principal  or  most 
essential  purposes  of  Christian  baptism.  The  high- 
est end  of  Christian  baptism  is  that  which  it  accom- 
plishes as  a  sacrament  or  seal  of  consecration  to  God, 


SUBJECTS   OF   CHRISTIAN     BAFT]  99 


id  his  prof  Bsed  worshippers.     That  end  is  not  lost 
of  by  immereionists;  consequently,  their  bap* 
dams  are  entitled  t<>  be  considered  valid,  though  not 
scriptural  in  respect  to  the  mode. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SUBJECTS   OF   CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 

Adult  converts  who  have  not  previously  been  bap- 
tized. 

§45.  There  is  a  general  agreement  among  Chris- 
tians, that  all  adult  persons  who  have  not  previously 
been  baptized,  are  appropriate  subjects  of  Christian 
baptism  when  they  become  Christians.  Persons  be- 
come Christians  by  receiving  Christianity  as  a  system 
of  truth,  adopting  its  principles,  and  obeying  its 
laws.  All  unbaptized  adult  persons,  therefore,  who 
receive  Christianity  as  true,  adopt  its  principles  and 
obey  its  laws,  are  entitled  to  receive  Christian  bap- 
tism. It  is  the  duty  of  all  adult  persons  who  are  not 
Christians  to  become  such;  and  having  become  such, 
if  unbaptized.  it  is  their  duty  to  receive  baptism. 

So  far,  the  scripture  doctrine  respecting  the  sub- 
jects of  Christian  baptism  is  clear  and  unembarrassed, 
and  generally  understood  by  Christians  of  all  orders. 


SUBJECTS   OF    CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM. 


Christian  baptism  is  to  be  administered  but  once  to 
the  same  subject. 

$46.  It  is  further  obvious  that  we  have  no  scrip- 
tural authority  for  administering  Christian  baptism 
but  once  to  the  same  subject.  The  scriptures  do 
not  authorize  a  repetition  of  this  rite  in  any  case 
whatever.  It  may  not,  therefore,  be  lawfully  re- 
peated. To  repeat  it  is  to  transcend  our  legitimate 
authority,  and  acting  without  authority  our  action  be- 
comes void.  No  persons,  therefore,  who  have  once 
been  duly  baptized,  can  be  again  appropriate  subjects 
of  baptism.  Their  second  baptism  is  without  divine 
authority,  and  is  therefore  not  a  valid  ordinance. 

Backsliders,  when  reclaimed,  may  renew  their 
covenant  with  God  and  their  profession  of  religion, 
but  they  may  not  lawfully  be  baptized  anew.  So 
those  baptized  in  infancy,  on  the  supposition  that  in- 
fant baptism  is  agreeable  to  the  scriptures,  may  enter 
in  covenant  with  God  and  his  people  when  they  be- 
come adults,  but  they  may  not  be  baptized  again. 


Question  respecting  Infant  Baptism. 

§47.  Whether  infants  are  appropriate  subjects  of 
baptism  on  the  ground  of  the  faith  of  their  parents, 
is  a  question  which  has  greatly  divided  and  agitated 
the  church  for  more  than  two  hundred  years  past.  I 
is  a  point  in  Christian  doctrine  that  ought  to  be  set- 
tled beyond  reasonable  dispute.  God  designed  his 
church  to  be  one.  A  diversity  of  sentiments  on  the 
question  whether  infanta  arc  appropriate  subjects  of 
Christian  baptism,  together  with  a  corresponding  di- 


SUBJBCTfl  or  christian   BAPTISM.  99 

versify  respecting  the  mode  of  baptism,  has  rent  it 
asunder  into  separate  bodies,  holding  no  communion 
With  each  other. 

These  diversities  of  sentiment  must  be  removed, 
and  the  church  re-united,  before  the  entire  conver- 
sion of  the  world.  The  legitimate  mode  of  removing 
tlnin  is  to  show  what  the  true  scripture  doctrine  is  on 
the  subject  of  the  title  of  infants  to  Christian  bap- 
tism, with  such  clearness  and  force  of  argument,  and 
with  such  fulness  of  illustration,  that  all  sensible  per- 
sons will  be  able  to  understand  it.  This  it  is  pro- 
posed to  do  on  the  present  occasion. 


ARGUMENTS    AGAINST    THE    BAPTISM    OF    INFANTS. 

§  48.  1.  There  is  no  specific  precept  for  baptizing 
them. 

2.  There  is  no  unquestionable  example  of  infant 
baptism  in  the  New  Testament. 

3.  Infants  are  not  the  subjects  of  faith  and  re- 
pentance; and  therefore  are  not  qualified  to  receive 
baptism. 

4.  The  covenant  relations  of  God  and  men  have 
been  so  changed  in  the  Christian  dispensation,  that 
infants  are  no  longer  included  with  their  parents  in 
the  religious  covenant  which  subsists  between  God 
and  his  people. 


First  argument  against  the  baptism  of  Infants. 

§49.  There  is  no  specific  precept  for  baptizing 
infants  in  the  New  Testament;  therefore,  they  ought 
not  to  be  baptized. 


100  SUBJECTS   OF   CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

The  premise  of  this  argument  is  admitted.  There 
is  no  specific  precept  for  the  baptism  of  infants  in 
the  New  Testament.  The  conclusion,  however,  is 
not  a  legitimate  deduction  from  this  premise. 

Laws  are  of  two  kinds,  general  and  specific.  A 
general  law  is  one  which  applies  to  two  or  more 
specific  cases,  or  classes  of  cases.  A  specific  law  is 
one  which  applies  to  a  single  case  or  a  single  class 
of  cases  only.  It  is  not  possible  to  make  specific 
laws  to  meet  all  cases;  and  it  is  not  desirable  to  have 
them  if  it  was  possible.  A  comparatively  few  gen- 
eral laws  are  sufficient  to  meet  an  immense  variety 
of  cases.  One  advantage  of  general  laws  is,  that  it 
takes  less  time  and  labor  to  learn  them  than  it  would 
take  to  learn  specific  laws,  comprehending  all  the 
cases  to  which  they  apply.  The  scriptures  deal  ex- 
tensively in  general  laws.  The  ten  commandments 
are  beautiful  examples  of  thcs?.  They  apply  to 
thousands  of  various  cases. 

If  there  is  no  specific  law  in  the  New  Testament 
requiring  the  baptism  of  infants,  it  remains  to  be  as- 
certained whether  there  is  any  general  law  requiring 
it.  The  absence  of  a  specific  law  is  no  proof  of  the 
absence  of  obligation,  provided  a  general  law  em- 
braces the  subjects  to  which  that  obligation  apper- 
tains. 

Specific  laws  are  only  necessary  to  reach  cases 
which  general  laws  cannot  reach. 

The  want  of  an  express  precept  for  baptizing  in- 
fants, therefore,  is  no  evidence  against  the  scriptural 
authority  of  infant  baptism.  Because  that  authority 
may  be.  vested  in  general  laws,  and  if  so,  specific 
laws  are  not  necessary  to  establish  it. 

Besides,  many  divine  laws  are  not  revealed  to  us 
in  the  form  of  precepts.      Even  in  cases  where  they 


r-nuKcTs  01  » mssrruM  bapxvm.         101 

were  originally  delivered  in  thai  form,  the  revelation 
of  them  to  oa  may  be  in  a  different  form. 

This  is  the  case  with  the  law  respecting  the  Chris- 
thin  Sabbath.  The  observance  of  the  Christian  Sab- 
hath  is  not  enjoined  by  precept  in  the  New  Testament, 
still  less  by  a  specific  precept  It  is  amply  enjoined, 
however,  by  other  means,  and  is  one  of  the  bulwarks 
of  the  Christian  faith.  So,  for  aught  the  above  ar- 
gument shows,  it  may  be  with  the  baptism  of  infants. 
It  may  be  enjoined  by  the  general  law  relating  to  the 
baptism  of  disciples;  and  if  so,  it  is  as  really  our 
duty  to  extend  the  application  of  this  rite  to  infants, 
as  if  we  had  explicit  laws  requiring  it. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  absence  of  precepts 
or  commands,  either  general  or  particular,  does  not 
prove  the  non-existence  of  laws;  because  laws  may 
be  revealed  in  other  forms  besides  that  of  commands. 
It  appears  further  that  the  absence  of  specific  laws 
does  not  prove  the  non-existence  of  obligation;  be- 
cause obligation  may  be  created  by  general  laws, 
binding  us  to  perform  particular  duties  comprehended 
with  other  duties  under  those  laws,  and  expressed 
only  in  general  terms. 

The  want  of  a  specific  precept  for  baptizing  in- 
fants does  not,  therefore,  invalidate  die  authority  of 
infant  baptism.  It  only  refers  us  to  a  more  general 
law,  relating  to  die  subjects  of  baptism,  to  see 
whether  infants  are  comprehended  among  the  other 
subjects  of  this  rite  or  not. 

If  infants  are  included  in  a  general  law  respecting 
the  subjects  of  baptism,  that  general  law  will  possess 
all  the  binding  force  in  favor  of  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants which  could  belong  to  a  specific  law. 

The  first  argument  against  the  baptism  of  infants, 
therefore,  is  a  failure.  It  proves  nothing  against  the 
doctrine  which  it  is  adduced  to  disprove. 


102  SUBJECTS   OF   CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 


Second  argument  against  the  baptism  of  Infants. 

$  50.  There  is  no  specific  example  of  the  baptism 
of  infants  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  incredible 
that  this  should  have  been  the  case,  if  infant  baptism 
had  been  practiced  by  the  apostles.  Therefore,  the 
baptism  of  infants  is  not  an  apostolic  usage. 

The  premise  of  this  argument  is  admitted  as  in 
the  former  case,  and  as  in  the  former  case  the  con- 
clusion is  denied.  It  would  be  very  natural  to  look 
for  specific  examples  of  infant  baptism  in  the  New 
Testament,  provided  infants  were  baptized  by  the 
apostles.  But  the  absence  of  such  examples  does 
not  prove  that  infants  were  not  baptized. 

If  it  can  be  proved  that  infants  were  appropriate 
subjects  of  Christian  baptism,  and  that  the  law  de- 
termining the  subjects  of  this  rite,  clearly  compre- 
hended them,  we  are  authorized  to  conclude  that 
they  were  baptized,  notwithstanding  that  no  specific 
record  is  made  of  their  baptism  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

The  title  of  infants  to  baptism  depends  upon  a 
law  including  them  among  the  subjects  of  this  rite, 
not  upon  the  contingency  of  specific  examples  being 
put  on  record  in  the  scriptures,  of  obedience  to  this 
law  by  the  apostles.  Examples  of  obedience  by  the 
apostles  add  nothing  to  the  force  of  laws  which  they 
illustrate,  and  the  want  of  recorded  examples  de- 
tracts nothing  from  it. 

If  the  baptism  of  infants  is  according  to  Christian 
law,  it  was  practiced  by  the  apostles.  The  position 
that,  if  infants  were  baptized  by  the  apostles,  some 
specific  example  of  it  must  have  been  left  on  record 
in  the  New  Testament,  is  without  adequate  founda- 


SUBJBCTB   Off  niKisTi.w    kaiti-m.  103 

lion.  If  is  au  unauthorized  assumption  which  has 
never  v«-t  been  proved  and  never  can  be  proved. 

Examples  of  infant  circumcision  occur  but  seldom 
in  the  <  Hd  Testament.  Century  after  century  passes 
away  without  the  occurence  of  any.  Infant  baptism 
may  not  have  bad  a  greater  claim  to  the  notice  of  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  than  infant  circum- 
i  had  to  that  of  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 

The  absence  of  any  examples  of  circumcision 
during  long  periods  of  the  Old  Testament  history, 
does  not  prove  the  disuse  of  infant  circumcision 
during  those  periods.  No  more  does  the  absence  of 
any  specific  examples  of  infant  baptism  in  the  New 
Testament  history,  prove  that  infants  were  not  bap- 
tized in  those  times. 


Third  argument  against  the  baptism  of  Infants. 

§51.  Infants  are  not  the  subjects  of  faith  and  re- 
pentance, and  therefore  are  not  qualified  to  receive 
baptism. 

In  the  case  of  adults,  baptism  naturally  follows 
faith  and  repentance.  The  order  of  duties  is,  first, 
faith  and  repentance;  second,  baptism.  Hence  the 
expressions,  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized," 
and  "Repent  and  be  baptized."  This,  however, 
does  not  prove  that  infants  must  repent  and  believe 
in  order  to  be  baptized. 

Repentence  and  faith,  are  indispensable  religious 
duties  incumbent  on  adults.  Therefore,  they  must 
perform  them  in  order  to  be  baptized.  These  duties 
are  not  incumbent  on  infants.  Therefore,  infants 
need  not  repent  and  believe  in  order  to  be  baptized. 


104  SUBJECTS    OF   CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

It  is  no  where  explicitly  stated  in  the  scriptures, 
that  faith  and  repentance  must  precede  baptism,  in 
the  case  of  adults.  This  doctrine,  however,  is 
taught  with  sufficient  clearness  by  implication.  We 
do  not  find  it  explicitly  stated  in  the  scriptures,  but 
we  infer  it,  legitimately,  from  what  we  do  find  there. 
To  this  extent,  our  inference  in  respect  to  the  neces- 
sary precedence  of  faith  and  repentance  to  baptism, 
is  legitimate,  but  no  farther.  Those  passages  from 
which  we  infer  that  adults  must  repent  and  believe 
in  order  to  be  baptized,  furnish  grounds  for  no  such 
legitimate  inference  in  respect  to  infants. 

The  scripture  requirements  of  faith  and  repen- 
tance, have  respect  to  adults,  not  to  infants.  They 
furnish  no  evidence,  therefore,  against  the  fitness  of 
infants  to  receive  baptism. 

The  propriety  of  applying  baptism  to  infants, 
equally  with  adults,  is  clearly  shown  by  the  Mosaic 
baptisms,  several  of  which  were  applicable  to  them. 
The  infantile  state  is  no  necessary  disqualification 
for  receiving  Christian  baptism,  more  than  it  was 
under  the  former  dispensation  for  receiving  the 
Mosaic  baptisms. 

Baptism  has  the  same  symbolical  meaning  when 
applied  to  infants,  which  it  has  in  application  to 
adults.  It  is  in  respect  to  them,  as  it  is  in  respect  to 
adults,  a  seal  of  discipleship  to  Christ,  and  a  mark 
of  consecration  to  God,  as  his  servants  and  worship- 
pers. Baptism  does  not  mark  the  infant  as  a  believer 
or  a  penitent,  but  it  does,  equally  with  adult  baptism, 
mark  its  subject  as  a  consecrated  person,  and  seal  to 
that  subject,  the  promised  grace  of  God.  It  also 
seals  the  obligation  of  the  subject,  to  serve  and  wor- 
ship God. 


SUBJECTS    OF    CHRISTIAN     BAPTISM.  105 

It  appears  clearly,  therefore,  that  the  want  of  fait!) 
and  repentant  e,  <m  the  part  of  infants,  is  no  disqual- 
ification fur  baptism,  and  no  evidence  that  they  are 
not  to  be  baptized. 


Fourth  argument  against  the  Baptism  of  Infants. 

$52.  The  covenant  relations  of  God  and  man 
have  been  so  changed,  in  the  Christian  dispensation, 
that  infants  are  no  longer  included,  with  their  pa- 
rents, in  the  religious  covenant  which  subsists  be- 
tween God  and  his  people. 

A  change  of  covenant  relations  between  God  and 
his  people,  is  supposed,  by  some,  to  have  been  pre- 
dicted in  Jer.  31:  31-34.  "Behold,  the  days  come, 
saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with 
the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah, 
not  according  to  the  covenant  that  I  made  with  their 
fathers  in  the  day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand,  to 
bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  (which,  my 
covenant,  they  broke,  although  I  was  a  husband  to 
them,  saith  the  Lord.)  But  this  shall  be  the  cove- 
nant that  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel :  Af- 
ter those  days,  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  put  my  law  in 
their  inward  parts  and  write  it  in  their  hearts,  and 
will  be  their  God  and  they  shall  be  my  people.  And 
they  shall  teach  no  more,  every  man  his  neighbor 
and  every  man  his  brother,  saying,  know  the  Lord, 
for  they  shall  all  know  me,  from  the  least  to  the 
greatest  of  them,  saith  the  Lord :  For  I  will  forgive 
their  iniquity,  and  I  will  remember  their  sin  no 
more." 

8 


106  SUBJECTS    OF   CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

This  passage  is  quoted  at  large  in  Heb.  8 :  8-12r 
and  applied  to  the  gospel  dispensation,  as  being  one 
of  greater  perfection  than  the  Mosaic. 

The  doctrine  of  the  new  covenant,  made  between 
God  and  man  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  is  made 
use  of,  by  the  apostle,  to  prove  the  superiority  of 
Christ,  to  the  Levitical  priesthood.  The  ministry  of 
Christ  is  claimed  to  be  more  excellent,  than  that  of 
the  Levitical  priesthood,  by  as  much  as  the  covenant 
of  God  with  man,  under  the  Christian  dispensation, 
exceeds  in  excellence,  that  made  with  the  Israelites 
at  their  departure  from  Egypt. 

The  superior  excellence  of  the  Christian  to  the 
Mosaic  covenant,  consisted,  not  in  the  exclusion  of 
infants  from  a  joint  interest  with  their  parents,  but 
in  the  actual  conversion  and  sanctification  of  men. 
Under  the  Mosaic  covenant  men  were  not  generally 
converted ;  under  the  Christian  covenant,  conversion 
should  become,  not  only  general,  but  universal. 

The  exclusion  of  children  from  a  joint  interest 
with  their  parents  in  the  Christian  covenant,  receives 
no  support,  whatever,  from  the  inspired  description 
of  this  covenant,  and  is  not  to  be  admitted  without 
evidence.  We  are  not  authorized  to  suppose  the 
Christian  covenant  to  differ  from  the  Mosaic,  any 
farther  than  a  difference  can  be  clearly  proved  from 
the  scriptures.  No  difference  can  be  proved  from 
the  scriptures  in  respect  to  the  joint  interest  of  chil- 
dren, with  their  parents,  in  covenant  blessings. 
Therefore,  none  ought  to  be  assumed. 

On  the  whole,  it  appears,  that  the  arguments 
against  infant  baptism,  are  not  conclusive.  They 
do  not  prove,  that  infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized. 
It  remains  to  determine  whether  they  ought  to  be 
baptized. 


CHURCH   MHMHERSHIP    OF   CHILDREN.  107 


SPECIFICATION    OF   ARGUMENTS    IN   FAVOR   OF   INFANT 
BAPTISM. 

$53.     1.  Membership  of  children  in  the  Christian 
church. 

2.  Analogy  of  Christian  baptism  to  circumcision. 

3.  Perpetuity  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 

4.  Designation  of  the  subjects  of  Christian  bap- 
tism, by  general  terms. 

5.  Absence  of  any  exclusion  of  infants  from  bap- 
tism. 

6.  Provision  for  the  early  conversion  of  children. 

7.  Testimony  of  the  early  Christian  fathers. 

8.  The  blessing  of  God  on  infant  church-member- 
ship and  baptism. 


CHAPTER  Vin. 

CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP  OF  CHILDREN. 

FIRST    ARGUMENT    IN   FAVOR   OF    INFANT    BAPTISM. 

$  54.  The  children  of  church-members  are  enti- 
tled to  be  admitted  to  the  Christian  church,  on  their 
parents'  account. 

The  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  is  mainly  impor- 
tant, as  it  is  connected  with  other  doctrines  respect- 
ing the  church  relations  of  the  children  of  church- 
members.     Disconnected  with  those  other  doctrines, 


108  CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP   OF   CHILDREN. 

it  sinks  into  insignificance,  and  is  comparatively  un- 
important. Connected  with  them,  and  sustained  by 
them,  it  assumes  an  importance,  scarcely,  if  at  all, 
inferior  to  that  of  adult  baptism. 


First  argument  in  favor  of  the  Church-membership 
of  Infants. 

$55.  One  of  the  affiliated  doctrines  connected 
with  infant  baptism,  and  one  on  which  the  adminis- 
tration of  baptism  to  infants  mainly  depends,  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  church-membership  of  infant  chil- 
dren in  consequence  of  their  position  in  the  families  of 
church-members.  The  principle  of  admitting  chil- 
dren to  the  church,  on  account  of  their  position  in 
pious  families,  was  established  in  the  time  of  Abra- 
ham. This  usage  was  probably  of  patriarchal  origin, 
and  for  aught  that  appears,  is  as  old  as  the  church 
itself.  Long  before  the  time  of  Abraham,  the 
church  of  God  was  propagated  from  generation  to 
generation,  in  the  line  of  family  descents,  and  the 
sons  of  God  appear  to  have  been  made  so,  by  paren- 
tal discipline.  Gen.  5:  21-32  6:2;  The  line  of  de- 
scent from  Seth,  was  the  line  of  the  Antediluvian 
patriarchs;  and,  apparently,  of  the  Antediluvian 
saints. 

But  whether  instituted  before  or  not,  in  the  time 
of  Abraham,  the  church-membership  of  the  children 
of  pious  parents,  was  clearly  and  explicitly  establish- 
ed. Of  this,  the  circumcision  of  infants  was  a  seal. 
The  principle  of  the  membership  of  infants,  in  the 
church  of  God,  was  incorporated  into  the  Mosaic 
dispensation,  and  its  divinely  appointed  seal  adopted. 
Before  the  Mosaic  dispensation  was  closed,  that  of 


<  in  Rcn-Mr.MnERSHir  of  ciiildiua.  100 

Christ  commenced.  For  a  time,  that  is,  during  the 
public,  ministry  of  Christ  and  till  the  abrogation  of 
the  Jewish  rites  at  the  time  of  the  conversion  of 
Cornelius,  both  dispensations  were  contemporaneous. 
The  Jewish  converts  were,  at  the  same  time,  both 
Jews  and  Christians.  They  observed  all  the  institu- 
tions of  Moses,  and  also,  the  additional  institutions 
of  Christ. 

The  Christian  church  was,  at  this  time,  a  division 
of  the  Jewish.  The  same  persons  were  members  of 
both.  Till  the  divine  communications  made  to  Pe- 
ter, at  the  time  of  the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  the 
apostles  seem  not  to  have  had  the  least  idea  of  the 
abrogation  of  the  Mosaic  rites.  Up  to  this  time,  the 
Christian  church  was  a  reformed  branch  of  the  Jew- 
ish, embracing  all  the  essential  features  and  princi- 
ples of  Judaism.  The  church-membership  of  infants, 
being  a  feature  of  Judaism,  established  by  divine 
authority,  must  have  been  retained.  To  suppose  its 
abrogation,  in  the  absence  of  the  least  vestige  of 
evidence  to  sustain  such  a  supposition,  is  absurd. 

In  the  rejection  of  the  unbelieving  Jews,  and  the 
abrogation  of  the  sacrifices,  circumcision,  and  other 
Mosaic  and  patriarchal  rites,  nothing  is  said  of  the 
principle  of  the  membership  of  children  in  the 
church.  This  principle,  and  the  usage  founded  on 
it,  cannot  be  abrogated  and  abolished,  without  being 
mentioned  or  alluded  to.  They  are,  therefore,  still 
in  force,  and  belong  to  the  christian  church  as  legiti- 
mately, as  they  did  to  the  Jewish. 

That  part  of  the  Jewish  church  which  received 
Jesus  Christ,  became  a  Christian  church  without 
ceasing  to  be  a  part  of  the  Jewish  church,  and  with- 
out abandoning  any  of  the  legitimate  principles  of 
Judaism.     They  did  not  at  first  and  for  some  years, 


110  CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP   OF   CHILDREN. 

that  is,  till  the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  omit  any  of 
the  Jewish  rites.  This  branch  of  the  Jewish  church 
came  off  from  the  other.  They,  of  course,  took  off 
their  children  with  them.  Not  to  have  done  so, 
would  have  been  contrary  to  one  of  the  essential 
principles  of  Judaism,  and  contrary  to  every  dictate 
of  humanity  and  piety. 

The  Christian  church  in  its  first  establishment, 
during  the  life  of  Christ,  was,  simply,  a  sect  of  Jews, 
and  a  reformed  branch  of  the  Jewish  church.  As 
such,  it  continued  to  adhere  to  all  the  divinely  ap- 
pointed Jewish  ceremonies.  When  the  unbelieving 
and  anti-Christian  part  of  the  Jewish  church  was  re- 
jected, and  became  utterly  reprobate,  the  Christian 
part  continued  to  be  the  same  body,  essentially,  as  it 
had  been  before;  its  essential  principles  being  un- 
changed, but  certain  Mosaic  and  patriarchal  rites 
being  laid  aside.  This  church,  therefore,  is  but  a 
continuation  of  the  Jewish  church  in  a  different 
form  and  with  a  more  simple  religious  service,  found- 
ed on  the  same  principles  and  for  the  same  objects. 
It  is  built  on  the  foundation  of  the  patriachs  and 
prophets,  as  well  as  on  that  of  the  apostles. 

Before  its  change  from  the  Jewish  to  the  Christian 
organization,  the  church  consisted  of  adults  and  their 
children.  When  the  Christian  organization  was  com- 
pleted, and  the  Jewish  not  dissolved,  as  was  the 
case  after  the  resurrection,  till  the  time  of  the  con- 
version of  Cornelius,  a  period  of  some  years,  infants 
were  still  included  by  virtue  of  the  Jewish  organiza- 
tion. The  abrogation  of  the  Mosaic  and  patriarchal 
rites,  which  followed  at  the  time  of  the  conversion  of 
Cornelius,  did  not  affect  the  relations  of  children. 
Therefore,  those  relations  continue  to  be  the  same 
as  before,  and  the   membership  of  infanta   in  the 


cm m  h-mi:mhkrship  of  "^"— '  111 

church,  is  a?  legitimate  a  principle  of  Christianity, 
as  it  was  of  Judaism. 

The  principle  of  tho  membership  of  children  in  the 
church  of  God,  established  in  the  time  of  Abraham, 
was  incorporated  in  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  and  no 
change  in  respect  to  it  being  revealed  or  intimated 
in  the  New  Testament,  must  be  concluded  to  have 
passed  into  the  Christian  church,  and  to  have  become 
incorporated  in  the  Christian  dispensation. 

This  principle  having  been  established  by  divine 
authority,  must  continue  till  it  is  revoked  by  the 
same. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  children  of  church- 
members  are  entitled  to  be  received  as  church- 
members,  and  that  all  children  who  belong  to  pious 
families  are,  in  consequence  of  their  position  in 
those  families,  entitled  to  share  the  enjoyment  of 
this  privilege  with  the  children  of  pious  parents,  as 
under  the  former  dispensations. 


Second  argument  in  favor  of  Church  Membership 
of  Infants. 

$56.  The  scriptural  authority  of  the  church 
membership  of  infants,  may  be  proved  more  directly 
by  the  explicit  declarations  of  Christ.  Math.  19: 
13,  15.  "Then  were  there  brought  to  him  little 
children,  that  he  should  put  his  hands  on  them  and 
pray;  and  the  disciples  rebuked  them:  but  Jesus 
said,  suffer  the  little  children  and  forbid  them  not  to 
come  to  me,  for  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

The  narration  of  this  transaction,  occurs  almost  in 
the  same  words,  in  Mark  10:  13,  16;  and  in  Luke 
18:  15, 17.     Luke  denominates  the  children  brought 


112  CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP   OP   CHILDREN. 

to  Christ,  infants ;  and  Mark  says,  in  addition  to  what 
is  said  by  the  other  evangelists,  that  "Jesus  took  them 
in  his  arms  and  blessed  them.'" 

Why  the  disciples  rebuked  persons  for  bringing 
children  to  Christ  on  this  occasion,  we  are  not  in- 
formed. Perhaps  it  subjected  them  to  some  incon- 
venience, or  interfered  with  some  favorite  arrange- 
ments for  business  or  pleasure.  Possibly  they 
thought  the  matter  of  too  little  consequence  to  oc- 
cupy their  time,  and  that  of  their  master,  and  to  de- 
tain them  from  other  engagements.  Whatever  their 
reasons  were  for  finding  fault  on  this  occasion,  with 
the  bringing  of  children  to  Christ  for  his  blessing, 
they  were  not  sustained  by  the  Divine  Saviour.  He 
viewed  their  conduct  in  relation  to  this  matter,  with 
deep  displeasure,  and  required  them  in  future  to  ab- 
stain entirely  from  making  opposition  in  any  case  to 
the  bringing  of  children  to  him.     Mark  10:  14. 

The  phrase,  suffer  little  children  to  come  to  me 
and  forbid  them  not,  is  more  than  usually  energetic. 
It  expresses  an  injunction  both  positively  and  nega- 
tively. Suffer  them  to  come,  is  a  positive  injunction ; 
and  forbid  them  not  to  come,  is  the  same  injunction 
expressed  negatively.  The  whole  expression  is 
equivalent  to  saying,  suffer  little  children  by  all 
means  to  come  to  rne  for  my  blessing,  and  on  no  ac- 
count prevent  or  hinder  their  coming. 

Some  have  endeavored  to  elude  the  force  of  this, 
by  saying,  that  it  described  children  of  sufficient 
to  come  of  their  own  accord,  not  such  as  might  be 
brought.     Such  an  evasion  savors  more  of  puerile 
trifling,  than  of  serious  and  intelligent  reasoning. 

The  nature  of  the  coming  referred  to,  is  clearly 
explained  by  the  context.     It  was  such  a  comm: 
was  practiced  by  the  children  brought  to  the  Savior 


<  m  ki  ii-MioinERSHir  of  cHmmun         113 

on  that  occasion;  the  corning  of  infants,  the  coming 
of  such  as  could  appropriately  be  taken  hi  the  arms 
to  receive  a  blessing.  To  come  to  Christ  in  this 
sense,  is  the  same  as  to  be  brought  to  him.  This  the 
Saviour  commands  the  disciples  to  Buffer  and  by  no 
means  to  oppose. 

The  reason  assigned  for  suffering  children  to  come 
to  Christ  for  his  blessing,  is  expressed  in  the  follow- 
ing words :  "  For  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
The  antecedent  of  the  relative  word  such,  is  children. 
Such,  therefore,  denotes  children  in  the  present  case; 
and  putting  children  in  the  place  of  the  word  sveh, 
which  denotes  them ;  the  whole  passage  reads  thus : 
Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  to  me  and  forbid 
them  not,  for  of  children  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

To  say  that  children  are  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
is  the  same  as  to  say,  that  they  belong  to  it.  To 
evade  tins  conclusion,  some  have  proposed  to  inter- 
pret such  not  as  denoting  children,  but  adult  persons 
resembling  children,  or  of  a  child-like  simplicity  and 
humility.  This  interpretation  cannot  be  admitted, 
for  the  following  reasons. 

1.  The  antecedent  word  to  which  such  relates,  and 
for  which  it  stands,  is  children,  not  persons  resem- 
bling children.  The  meaning  of  such  depends  upon 
the  word  for  which  it  stands,  and  is  determined  by 
that  word.  If  it  stood  for  persons  resembling  chil- 
dren, and  related  to  words  denoting  such  persons  as 
its  antecedent,  it  would  denote  them,  but  standing  as 
it  does  for  the  word  children,  and  relating  to  that 
word  as  its  antecedent,  it  denotes  children. 

2.  The  relation  predicated  of  the  persons  deno- 
ted by  the  word  such,  is  assigned  as  a  reason  for 
suffering  children  to  come  to  Christ.  That  which 
is  a  reason  for  suffering  children  to  come  to  Christ,. 


114  CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP   OF   CHILDREN. 

must  pertain  to  children,  not  merely  to  adults  of  a 
child-like  disposition.  Therefore,  such,  the  subject 
of  this  proposition,  must  refer  to  children,  otherwise 
the  reasoning  of  the  Saviour  is  inconclusive.  The 
interest  of  child-like  adults  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  is  no  reason  whatever  for  suffering  children 
to  come  to  Christ.  It  is  only  a  reason  for  suffering 
child-like  adults  to  come  to  him. 

Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  therefore, 
means  of  children  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  that  is, 
that  children  as  well  as  adults,  are  subjects  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven. 

But  What  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  the  phrase 
is  generally  used  in  the  gospels?  I  answer  it  is  the 
Christian  church.  In  proof  of  this,  the  following 
passages  may  be  adduced.  Matt.  3 :  2.  "  Repent 
for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  So  Matt.  4: 
17,  10:  7.  Matt.  13:  24.  "The  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  like  a  man  sowing  good  seed  in  his  field." 
See  also,  verses  31,  33,  44,  45,  47.  The  phrase 
kingdom  of  God,  is  used  as  synonymous  with  king- 
dom of  heaven.  Mark  1:  14,  15.  "Now  after 
John  was  put  in  prison,  Jesus  came  into  Gallilee, 
preaching  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
saying,  the  time  is  fulfilled  and  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  at  hand ;  repent  ye  and  believe  the  gospel." 

Luke  4:  43.  "And  he  said  to  them,  I  must 
preach  the  kingdom  of  God  to  other  cities  also." — 
Luke  6:  20.  "And  he  lifted  up  his  eyes  on  his  dis- 
ciples, and  said  blessed  be  ye  poor,  for  yours  is  the 
kingdom  of  God."  Acts  10:  8.  "And  entering 
into  a  synagogue  he  spake  boldly  for  the  space  of 
three  months,  disputing  and  persuading  the  things 
concerning  the  kingdom  of  God."  Acts  28:  30,  31. 
"  Paul  dwelt  two  years  in  his  own  hired  house,  and 


CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP    OF   CHILDREN.  115 

received  all  that  came  to  him,  preaching  the  king- 
dom of  Cod,  and  teaching  those  things  which  con- 
cern the  Lord  Jesus,  with  all  confidence,  no  man 
lorbidtling  him." 

The  church  of  God  is  his  kingdom  on  earth. 
God  is  its  king,  gives  it  laws,  establishes  its  offices 
and  ordinances,  and  administers,  by  means  of  those 
offices  and  in  modes  of  his  appointment,  its  govern- 
ment. It  is  a  spiritual  kingdom  not  established  for 
secular  purposes,  but  for  religious  purposes. 

Of  this  spiritual  kingdom  infants  arc  subjects. 
This  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  infants  are  members 
of  the  church  of  Christ.  We  have,  then,  the  doc- 
trine of  infant  membership  in  the  church  of  Christ, 
explicitly  asserted  by  Christ  himself,  and  asserted 
as  a  reason  why  infants  should  be  brought  to  him  for 
his  blessing. 

The  phrase,  kingdom  of  heaven,  is  interpreted  by 
some,  as  referring  to  the  kingdom  of  glory,  and  not 
to  the  church  of  Christ  on  earth.  This  interpreta- 
tion is  objectionable,  on  the  following  grounds: 

1.  Kingdom  of  heaven  having  become  a  common 
title  of  the  Christian  church,  ought  throughout  the 
evangelical  history,  to  be  interpeted  in  that  sense, 
unless  in  cases  where  the  context  will  not  admit  of 
this  interpretation. 

2.  The  participation  of  infants  in  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  on  earth,  is  a  more  direct  reason  for  the  con- 
duct enjoined,  than  their  participation  in  the  fellow- 
ship of  his  kingdom  above.  When  two  interpreta- 
tions are  admissable,  that  which  assigns  a  reason 
most  to  the  point,  other  things  being  equal,  is  always 
to  be  preferred.  Therefore,  the  interpretation  of 
kingdom  of  heaven  to  denote  the  kingdom  or  church 
of  Christ  on  earth,  is  in  this  case  to  be  adopted. 


116  CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP   OF   CHILDREN. 

Third  argument  in  favor  of  the  Church  Membership 
of  Infants. 

§57.  A  third  argument  in  favor  of  the  member- 
ship of  infants  in  the  Christian  church,  may  be  de- 
duced from  Rom.  11:  16,  17.  "For  if  the  first 
fruit  be  holy,  the  lump  is  also  holy,  and  if  the  root 
be  holy,  so  are  the  branches.  And  if  some  of  the 
branches  be  broken  off,  and  thou,  being  a  wild  olive- 
tree,  wert  grafted  in  among  them,  and  with  them  par- 
takest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive-tree,  boast 
net  against  the  branches." 

In  this  passage,  the  church  of  God  is  compared  to 
an  olive-tree.  The  olive-tree  previous  to  the  break- 
ing off  of  some  of  its  branches,  was  the  Jewish 
church  before  the  rejection  of  the  greater  part  of  that 
nation  on  account  of  their  unbelief.  The  tree  was 
not  destroyed,  but  only  some  of  its  branches  broken 
off.  This  shows  that  the  church  was  not  dissolved, 
but  passed  unchanged  from  the  Mosaic  to  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation ;  as  it  had  previously  done  from  the 
Patriarchal  to  the  Mosaic  dispensation. 

Some  of  the  branches  were  not  broken  off.  The 
believing  part  of  the  Jewish  church  continued  in  their 
primitive  church  relations,  and  were  the  Jewish 
church  modified  by  the  omission  of  certain  specified 
Mosaic  rites,  and  the  introduction  of  certain  speci- 
fied Christian  rites. 

The  grafling  in  of  branches  from  the  wild  olive- 
tree,  denotes  the  admission  of  Gentiles  to  the  church 
of  God  to  partake  of  the  genial  influence  of  church 
principles  and  institutions,  without  having  been  pre- 
viously proselyted  to  Judaism. 

The  Jewish  church  thus  modified,  by  the  excision 
of  a  part  only  of  its  brandies,  and  the  grafling  in  of 


CIiriUTI-MI -.MHKKSHIP    OF    CIULDRI.N.  117 

others  to  occupy  their  place,  and  by  the  omission  of 
certain  Jewish  rites  and  the  adoption  of  certain 
Christian  rites,  is  die  Christian  church  of  succeeding 
times. 

The  roots  and  trunk  and  a  part  of  the  brandies  of 
this  church-tree  are  the  same  as  formerly.  This  de- 
notes the  essential  unity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
churches.  They  are  of  one  stock,  and  are  one  con- 
tinuous body. 

It  is  not  true,  as  some  have  supposed,  that  the 
Jewish  church  was  a  secular  establishment,  and  that 
the  Christian  church  is  a  spiritual  one.  Both  are 
spiritual.  Both  are  alike  in  this  respect,  because 
one  is  a  continuation  of  the  other. 

Judaism,  as  it  existed  previously  to  the  establish- 
ment of  Christianity,  and  as  it  was  constituted  by  di- 
vine authority,  is  to  be  distinguished  from  that  Juda- 
ism, which  the  apostles  subsequently  condemned  as 
involving  the  doctrine  of  justification  on  the  ground 
of  meritorious  obedience,  and  as  at  the  time  consist- 
ing in  uncommanded  and  therefore  useless  ceremo- 
nies. 

The  Judaism  of  the  accepted  patriarchs  and  proph- 
ets was  one  thing,  that  of  the  rejected  Jews  was  an- 
other. The  former  was  in  essential  agreement  with 
Christianity;  the  latter  was  in  irreconcileable  oppo- 
sition to  it.  The  former  was  spiritual;  the  latter 
carnal. 

It  appears,  on  the  whole,  therefore,  that  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  church  under  the  emblem  of  a  tree, 
and  that  of  the  excision  of  the  unbelieving  Jews,  by 
the  excision  of  some  branches  of  this  tree,  while  the 
others  remain,  clearly  proves  the  identity  of  the  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  churches.    Hence  it  follows  that  the 


118  CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP   OF   CHILDREN. 

membership  of  infants,  which  prevailed  in  the  Jewish 
church,  must  be  considered  as  continuing  in  the 
Christian  church. 


Fourth  argument  in  favor  of  the  Church  Membership 
of  Infants. 

$58.  A  fourth  argument  in  favor  of  the  church 
membership  of  children,  is  drawn  from  the  applica- 
tion of  the  titles  of  church  members  to  denote  them 
in  the  scriptures. 

The  titles  of  church  members  are  saints  or  holy 
persons,  and  faithfuls.  The  latter  is  in  some  cases 
improperly  translated  believers.  Both  these  terms 
are  applied  in  the  new  testament  to  denote  children. 

$59.  (1.)  Children  of  church  members  are  called 
saints,  or  holy  persons.  1  Cor.  7 :  14.  u  For  the 
unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  believing 
wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the 
husband,  else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now 
are  they  holy.'" 

This  passage  occurs  as  an  argument  to  prove  that 
married  church  members  may  lawfully  live  with  un- 
christian companions.  The  established  rule  on  the 
subject  of  matrimonial  relations  among  the  Jews 
was  the  opposite  of  this.  The  Jew  might  not  live 
with  a  heathen  companion.  Hence,  in  the  time  of 
Ezra,  connections  of  this  kind  were  forcibly  dissolved 
by  the  authority  and  influence  of  that  prophet.  See 
Ezra  10:  1-17. 

Under  the  Christian  dispensation,  a  milder  law 
prevails.  A  holy  husband  makes  the  wife  so  far  holy 
as  that  it  is  lawful  for  him  to  live  with  her  as  a  com- 


C'AVm  II   MKMHKRSIIIP  OF   CHILDREN.  119 

panion;  and  a  holy  wife  makes  the  husband  so  far 
holy,  that  it  i.s  lawful  for  her  to  live  with  him.  This 
representation  is  founded  on  the  Jewish  law  of  de- 
filement. A  denied  object  rendered  all  objects 
which  came  in  contact  with  it  defiled.  So,  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  a  Christian  companion 
rendered  an  unchristian  one  holy,  in  a  legal  sense, 
as  under  the  former  dispensation,  a  defiled  object 
rendered  a  clean  one  denied.  The  defilement  thus 
created  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation  was  entirely 
ceremonial.  So  the  sanctification  effected  by  the 
Christian  companion  is  only  ceremonial  or  figurative, 
and  is  the  basis  of  lawful  companionship.  This  lan- 
guage is  used  with  reference  to  the  disability  created 
by  impiety  for  lawful  companionship  with  the  saints 
under  the  former  dispensation.  It  signifies  only  the 
removal  of  that  disability.  The  removal  of  all  dis- 
abilities for  companionship  with  Christians  on  the 
part  of  persons  who  are  not  Christians,  is  fully  settled 
by  a  reference  to  the  position  of  the  children  of  such 
connections. 

If  such  connections  had  not  been  lawful,  and  the 
unchristian  companion  had  been  accounted  unclean, 
that  is,  unfit  for  Christian  companionship,  the  chil- 
dren, as  under  the  former  dispensation,  would  also 
have  been  accounted  unclean.  In  the  case  of  the 
Israelites,  the  children  of  mixed  marriages  were  re- 
quired to  be  excluded  from  any  participation  in  Jew- 
ish church  privileges  equally  with  their  heathen 
parents.     Ezra  10:  3. 

Under  the  Christian  dispensation,  the  apostle  in- 
forms us  that  such  children  are  holy.  He  mentions 
it  not  as  something  that  was  new  to  his  Corinthian 
brethren,  but  as  something  which  was  well  known, 


120  CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP  OF  CHILDREN. 

and  could  therefore  be  made  use  of  to  illustrate  less 
obvious  truths. 

According  to  the  Mosaic  law,  the  people  of  God 
were  the  clean  or  holy,  and  all  others  were  the  un- 
clean. Hence  it  is  said,  Isa.  52 :  1,  "Awake !  awake! 
put  on  thy  strength,  O  Zion!  Put  on  thy  beautiful 
garments,  O  Jerusalem,  the  holy  city;  for  henceforth 
there  shall  no  more  come  into  thee  the  uncircum- 
cised  and  the  unclean?''  Ezek.  44:  23;  "They  (the 
priests  and  Levites,)  shall  teach  my  people  the  dif- 
ference between  the  holy  and  profane,  and  cause 
them  to  discern  between  the  unclean  and  the  clean" 
The  clean  and  unclean,  in  these  passages,  are  titles 
of  the  pious  and  wicked.  Clean  is  extensively  used 
in  the  sense  of  holy,  as  in  Job  11:  4;  15:  14:  33-. 
9.    Isa.  52 :  1 1 .     Jer.  13 :  27.     Ezek.  36 .  25. 

A  similar  usage  prevails  in  the  New  Testament. 
Holy,  commonly  translated  saint,  is  applied  exten- 
sively, in  the  New  Testament,  a  sa  title  of  members 
in  the  church  of  Christ.  Of  this,  the  following  pas- 
sages are  examples : 

Acts  26:  10.  "And  many  of  the  saints  did  I 
shut  up  in  prison,  having  received  authority  from  the 
chief  priests."  Rom.  15:  25;  "But  now  I  goto 
Jerusalem  to  minister  to  the  saints"  2  Cor.  1:1; 
"To  the  church  of  God,  which  is  at  Corinth,  with 
all  the  saints  which  are  in  all  Achaia."  Eph.  1:1; 
"  To  the  saints  which  are  at  Ephesus,  and  to  the 
faithfuls  in  Christ  Jesus."  Phil.  1 :  1 ;  "  To  all  the 
saints  in  Christ  Jesus  which  are  at  Philippi,  with  the 
bishops  and  deacons." 

If  children,  where  either  of  the  parents  is  a  church 
member,  are  not  unclean  but  holy,  this  must  be  un- 
derstood according  to  the  meaning  of  the  terms  un- 
clean and  holy,  taken  in  connection  with  the  nature 


till •RCII-MKMnERSIIIP  OP   CHILDREN.  121 

of  the  subjects  to  which  they  arc  applied.  Accord- 
ing to  the  meaning  of  the  terms  unclean  and  holy,  it 
must  refel  to  the  separation  of  such  children  from 
the  children  of  unbelievers,  and  their  consecration 
to  God.  According  to  the  nature  of  the  subjects 
spoken  of,  which  are  children,  not  adult  persons,  it 
must  denote  a  separation  of  such  children  solely  on 
account  of  their  position  in  Christian  families. 

This  was  analogous  to  what  occurred  under  the 
Mosaic  dispensation,  and  proves  an  agreement  of  the 
Mosaic  and  Christian  dispensations  in  having  the 
children  of  believers  included  among  the  acknow- 
ledged and  professed  people  of  God. 

If  children  were  reckoned  as  church  members, 
then  they  were  not  unclean  but  holt/.  If  they  were 
not  reckoned  as  church  members,  they  were  unclean 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  gentiles  were,  and, 
in  this  respect,  were  not  distinguishable  from  them. 

Unbelieving  companions  were  sanctified  legally, 
in  a  figurative  sense,  so  that  church  members  might 
lawfully  continue  in  connection  with  them ;  and  this 
is  commended  to  our  faith  by  the  consideration  that, 
if  it  were  not  so,  our  children  would  be  unclean, 
whereas  they  are  known  to  be  holy.  That  is,  if  this 
were  not  so,  our  children  would  have  to  be  reckoned 
as  of  the  same  unsanctified  body  with  the  heathen, 
whereas  they  are  now  reckoned  as  belonging  to  the 
church  of  God,  and  as  being  so  far  the  subjects  of 
ceremonial  holiness. 

There  is  no  other  sense  in  which  the  children  of 
church  members  can  be  accounted  holy,  except  as 
fit  candidates  for  admission  to  the  Christian  church  - 
Their  ceremonial  holiness,  therefore,  is  an  evidence 
of  their  title  to  church  membership,  and  their  title 
9 


122  CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP  OF  CHILDREN. 

to  church  membership  lays  a  foundation  for  their 
baptism. 

§  60.  (2.)  Children  of  church  members  are  called 
faithful.  The  term  faithful  is  a  title  frequently  ap- 
plied to  Christians  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is 
sometimes  improperly  translated  believers.  The  fol- 
lowing are  some  of  the  instances  in  which  it  occurs : 
Acts  16:1;  "  The  son  of  a  certain  woman,  who  was 
a  Jewess  and  a  faithful"  that  is,  a  Christian.  2 
Cor.  6 :  15 ;  "  What  part  hath  a  faithful  with  an  un- 
faithful." 1  Tim.  f :  16;  "If  any  faithful  [man]  or 
faithful  [woman]  have  widows,  let  such  relieve 
them."  1  Tim.  4:  12;  "  Be  thou  an  example  to  the 
faithfuls,  in  word,  in  conversation,  in  charity,  in 
spirit,  in  faith,  in  purity."  Eph.  1 :  1 ;  "  To  ihe  faith- 
fuls in  Christ  Jesus." 

In  the  above,  and  many  similar  passages  of  scrip- 
ture, faithful  and  faithfuls  denote  Christians  or 
church  members.  Being  a  title  of  church  members, 
the  application  of  this  term  to  children  by  the  apos- 
tle is  an  evidence  that  they  were  church  members. 

An  application  is  made  of  it  to  children  in  Titus 
1 :  6,  in  describing  the  qualifications  for  the  office  of 
Presbyter  or  Bishop.  "If  any  be  blameless,  the 
husband  of  one  wife,  hawing  faithful  children." 

In  what  sense  is  having  faithful  children  a  qualifi- 
cation for  the  office  of  bishop?  It  may  be  taken  in 
the  sense  of  obedient  children,  as  it  is  said  in  a 
parallel  passage,  1  Tim.  3:4,  "  One  that  ruleth  his 
own  family  well,  having  his  children  in  subjection 
with  all  gravity." 

It  may  also  refer  to  children  as  made  Christians, 
that  is,  baptized,  and  thus  admitted  to  the  com- 
munion of  the  saints;  and  this  is  in  agreement  with 


CHtTBCH  HEMBBBSHIF   OF  ciiili>ri:.v  123 

the  general  usage  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

A  similar  usage  prevailed  among  the  early  Chris- 
tian-, as  appears  from  ancient  inscriptions.  The 
following  are  some  examples  of  these;  "Cyreacus, 
a  faithful,  died  eight  days  less  than  three  years  old. 
Ill  Kat.  Alar."  Muratori.  "The  mother,  Eustasia, 
places  this  [stone]  in  commemoration  of  her  son, 
Policitanio,  a  faithful,  who  lived  three  years." 
Gruter,  No.  8.  "  Uncia  Florentina,  a  faithful,  rests 
here  in  peace.  She  lived  five  years,  eight  months, 
and  eight  days.     Muratori." 

Paul  informs  Titus  that  a  Presbyter  or  bishop  must 
have  faithful  children.  The  term  faithful  is  a  title  of 
professing  Christians  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
was  applied  to  denote  baptized  children  by  the  an- 
cient Christians.  Whence  we  infer,  that,  in  the 
apostolic  direction  to  Titus,  faithful  children  means 
baptized  children ;  and  that  no  person  was  allowed  to 
be  made  a  presbyter  or  bishop  who  did  not  have  his 
children  baptized,  and  bring  them  up  in  a  religious 
manner. 


Fifth  argument  in  favor  of  the  church-membership 
of  Infants. 

$61.  It  was  predicted  that  Christ,  under,  the 
Christian  dispensation,  should  regard  and  treat  chil- 
dren as  lambs  of  his  flock. 

Isa.  40:  11,  "He  shall  feed  his  flock  like  a  shep- 
herd: he  shall  gather  the  lambs  with  his  arm  and 
carry  them  in  his  bosom."  Christ  alludes  to  this  pre- 
diction, in  John  10:  11-18,  and  declares,  "I  am  the 
good  shepherd."     He  also  says,  alluding  to  his  Jew- 


124  CHURCII-MEMBERSniP   OF   CHILDREN. 

ish  disciples,  "  Other  sheep  I  have,  which  are  not  of 
this  fold.  Them,  also,  I  must  bring;  they  shall  hear 
my  voice,  and  there  shall  be  one  fold  and  one  shep- 
herd." 

In  the  comparison  of  the  church  to  a  sheep-fold, 
the  sheep  represent  adult  Christians,  and  the  lambs 
their  infant  children.  Taking  the  lambs  with  the 
arm  and  carrying  them  in  the  bosom,  denotes  taking 
the  children  of  the  church  in  the  arm,  and  carrying 
them  in  the  bosom. 

If  adult  converts  may,  in  some  cases,  not  inappro- 
priately be  called  the  lambs  of  Christ's  flock;  this 
does  not  prove,  that  children  are  not  equally  entitled 
to  be  comprehended  under  that  designation.  The 
lambs  of  Christ's  flock,  may  comprehend  adult  con- 
verts; but  they  must  comprehend  the  infant  children 
of  church-members. 

In  all  periods  preceding  the  establishment  of  the 
Christian  church,  pious  adults  were  regarded  as  the 
sheep  of  Christ's  fold,  and  their  children  as  the 
lambs.  A  prediction  in  regard  to  the  lambs,  when 
these  lambs  denoted,  beyond  all  question,  the  chil- 
dren of  the  saints,  must  be  interpreted  agreeably  to 
that  usage,  as  denoting  them  too. 

It  is  clear  then  that,  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, Christ  was  to  take  children  with 'his  arm,  and 
cany  them  in  his  bosom,  as  the  lambs  of  his  flock. 
This  is  done  by  the  baptism  of  children,  and  their 
recognition  as  members  of  the  church  of  Christ. 
Where  children  are  not  baptized,  and  not  recognized 
as  members  of  the  church  of  Christ,  this  is  not  done. 
They  cannot  be  taken  in  the  arms  of  Christ  as  lambs 
of  his  flock,  without  being  recognized  as  a  part  of 
that  flock. 


<  m  ki ■ii-mi:mhi:ksiiip  of  infants.  125 

The  opposen  of  infant  baptism,  discard  theil  own 
children  ;is  not  being  lambs  of  the  flock  of  Christ, 
and  not  being  tit  to  bo  taken  up  and  cherished  as 
Bach.  How  contrary  is  this  to  the  prediction:  "He 
shall  feed  his  flock  like  a  shepherd.  He  shall  gath- 
er the  lambs  with  his  arm  and  carry  them  in  his 
bosom.*" 


Sixth  argument  in  favor  of  the  Church-membership 
of  Irfants. 

$  62.  Eph.  2 :  1 1-12,  "  Wherefore  remember,  that 
ye  being  in  time'past  Gentiles  in  the  flesh,  who  are 
called  uncircumcision  by  that  which  is  called  circum- 
cision in  the  flesh  made  with  hands;  that  at  that  time 
ye  were  without  Christ,  being  aliens  from  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel  and  strangers  from  the  cove- 
nants of  promise,  having  no  hope,  and  without  God 
in  the  world.  But  now  in  Christ  Jesus,  ye  who 
sometimes  were  far  off,  are  made  nigh  by  the  blood 
of  Christ." 

•  V.  19.  "  Now,  therefore,  ye  are  no  more  strangers 
and  foreigners,  but  fellow  citizens  with  the  saints 
and  of  the  household  of  God." 

In  the  above  declaration  of  the  apostle,  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel,  with  its  covenants  of  promise, 
denotes  the  Jewish  church. 

Members  of  the  Christian  church,  arc  described  as 
being  no  more  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow 
citizens  with  the  saints  and  of  the  household  of 
God. 

From  this  it  clearly  appears  that,  in  the  estimation 
of  the  apostle,  the  Jewish  commonwealth  was,  for  the 
time  being,  the  family  or  church  of  God,  and  that 


126  CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP   OF   CHILDREN. 

the  Christian  church  is  a  continuation  of  this  family, 
so  that  those  who  are  received  into  it,  are  fellow  cit- 
izens with  the  saints  of  the  former  dispensation. 

In  being  called  fellow-citizens,  the  church  is  com- 
pared to  a  state.  The  Jewish  and  Christian  saints 
are  described  as  fellow  citizens,  that  is,  as  members 
of  one  and  the  same  state.  But  if  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  churches  are  one  and  the  same  state,  so 
that  Christians  are  fellow  citizens  with  the  Jews  of 
the  former  dispensation,  then  Judaism  and  Christi- 
anity are,  essentially,  the  same  system;  and  all  the 
essential  principles  of  Judaism,  are  principles  of 
Christianity.  It  was  one  essential  principle  of  Juda- 
ism, that  children  should  be  included,  with  their  pa- 
rents, as  subjects  of  religious  rites.  The  same, 
therefore,  is  a  legitimate  principle  of  Christianity. 

The  church-membership  of  children  is  established 
by  six  independent  arguments. 

§63.  Each  of  these  arguments  is  independent  of 
the  others,  and  each,  consequently,  must  stand  or 
fall  by  itself.  The  first  three  will  be  easily  under- 
stood, and  their  conclusiveness  easily  perceived  % 
candid  readers. 

It  may  be  questioned  whether  the  fourth  is  con- 
clusive. Explanations  may  be  put  upon  the  promi- 
ses of  that  argument,  which  do  not  require  the 
hypothesis  of  the  church-membership  of  children. 
The  evidence  which  they  afibrd,  therefore,  is  of  the 
probable,  not  of  the  demonstrative  kind.  But  the 
probability  which  they  establish  is  of  very  considera- 
ble strength.  It  depends  upon  laws  of  interpreta- 
tion which  are  so  general,  and  upon  facts  and  prin- 
ciples which  are  so  obvious  and  indisputable,  that 
the  conclusion  based  upon  it,  particularly  with  res- 


(  IIURCn-MEMBERSHIP    OF   CHILDREN.  127 

pect  to  the  application  of  the  word  holy,  falls  little 
short  of  being  certain.  That  conclusion  is  not  only 
probable,  but  probable  in  the  highest  degree,  and, 
therefore,  if  it  was  unsustained  by  the  three  prece- 
ding arguments,  would  be  a  legitimate  principle  of 
action,  and  a  valid  reason  for  admitting  children  to 
be  members  of  the  Christian  church. 

It  appears  on  the  whole,  therefore,  that  infants, 
belonging  to  the  families  of  church-members,  are 
entitled  to  be  admitted  to  the  Christian  church. 
This  conclusion  is  supported  by  evidence  of  the 
most  decisive  character.  There  is  no  counter  evi- 
dence. There  is  nothing  in  the  scriptures  inconsis- 
tent with  it.  The  objection  that  infants  are  not 
mentioned  as  church-members,  and  not  particularly 
treated  as  such  in  the  New  Testament,  amounts  to 
nothing.  God  may  not  have  taken  our  own  favorite 
modes  of  acquainting  us  with  this  feature  of  Christi- 
anity, but  he  has  furnished  us  with  other  means  of 
ascertaining  it;  which,  if  properly  improved,  will 
conduct  us  to  the  most  certain  conclusion  on  the 
subject. 

The  title  of  infants  to  church-membership,  com- 
prehends their  title  to  Christian  baptism,  because 
baptism  is  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the  church. 

Children,  therefore,  being  entitled  to  church-mem- 
bership, are  entitled  to  receive  baptism,  the  rite  of 
initiation  into  the  church,  and  the  seal  of  church- 
membership. 


128  ANALOGY   OF   BAPTISM 


CHAPTER  IX. 

ANALOGY  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM  TO 
CIRCUMCISION. 

Second  argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism. 

§  64.  Christian  baptism  is  analogous  to  circumci- 
sion. 

Nature  of  Circumcision. 

1.  Circumcision  was,  formerly,  enjoined  upon  all 
the  true  worshippers  of  God.  with  the  exception  of 
females,  who  were  incapable  of  receiving  it,  as  a 
seal  of  justification  by  faith.  Hence  it  is  said,  Rom. 
4:  11,  12,  "And  he  (Abraham,)  received  the  sign 
of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith, 
[which  he  obtained]  in  uncircumcision,  that  he  might 
be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe  in  circumci- 
sion, that  righteousness  might  be  imputed  to  them 
also ;  and  the  father  of  the  uncircumcision,  not  to  those 
of  the  circumcision  only,  but  to  those  who  walk  in 
the  steps  of  the  faith  of  our  father  Abraham,  which 
he  had  in  uncircumcision." 

The  righteousness  of  faith  is  the  same  as  justify 
cation  by  faith.  Circumcision,  therefore,  in  being 
to  Abraham  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  was 
to  him  a  seal  of  justification  by  faith.  And  if  it 
was  a  seal  of  justification  by  faith  in  the  case  of 
Abraham,  it  was  a  seal  of  the  same  thing  in  the  case 
of  all  others  to  whom  it  was  lawfully  applied.  Con- 
sidered as  a  seal,  it  did  not  confirm  one  tiling  to 


TO    (  IRITMCISION. 


129 


Abraham  and  another  and  different  thing  to  others, 
but  scaled  one  and  the  same  thing  to  all.  It  WIS} 
therefore,  a  seal  of  justification  by  faith,  when  ap- 
plied to  infants,  as  much  as  when  applied  to  Abra- 
ham. 

§65.  2.  Circumcision  was  a  symbol  of  moral 
cleansing.  Hence,  in  Dent.  10:  16,  it  is  said,  "Cir- 
cumcise, therefore,  the  foreskin  of  your  heart,  and  be 
no  more  stiff-necked.  Deut.  30 :  6,  "  And  the  Lord 
thy  God  will  circumcise  thy  heart  and  the  heart  of 
thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart 
and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest  live.1" 

Jer.  4:  4,  "Circumcise  yourselves  to  the  Lord 
and  take  away  the  foreskin  of  your  heart,  ye  men  of 
Judah  and  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.'"  Acts  7:  51, 
"Ye  stiff-necked,  and  uncircumcised  in  heart  and 
ears,  ye  do  always  resist  to  Holy  Ghost:  as  )Our 
fathers  did,  so  do  ye."  Rom.  2 :  28,  29,  "  For  he  is 
not  a  Jew,  who  is  one  outwardly;  neither  is  that  cir- 
cumcision, which  is  outward  in  the  flesh.  But  he  is 
a  Jew,  who  is  one  inwardly,  and  circumcision  is  that 
of  .the  heart,  in  the  spirit  and  not  in  the  letter,  whose 
praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God." 

In  these  passages,  the  significancy  of  circumcision 
as  a  symbol  of  moral  cleansing,  is  most  clearly  set 
forth.  To  circumcise  the  heart  means,  to  cleanse 
the  heart.  The  cleansing  of  the  heart  is,  moral 
cleansing.  Circumcision,  therefore,  is  evidently  a 
symbol  of  moral  cleansing. 

$66.  3.  Circumcision  was  a  rite  of  initiation  into 
the  Patriarchal  and  Mosaic  church 

Wh<>n  the  infant,  eight  days  old,  was  circumcised, 
it  was  initiated  into  tie  then  existing  church  of  God, 


130  ANALOGY    OF   BAPTISM 

and  recognized  as  a  member  of  that  church.  So  in 
the  case  of  adults,  who  were  converted  to  the  Abra- 
hamic  and  Mosaic  faith.  They  were  initiated  into 
the  ancient  church,  by  circumcision;  and  circumci- 
sion when  administered  was,  in  the  case  of  males,  a 
seal  of  their  membership. 

§  67.  4.  Circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the  covenant 
relations  subsisting  between  God  and  his  people, 
and  in  being  a  seal  of  those  relations,  it  was  a  seal 
of  all  the  blessings  promised  by  God  in  his  covenant 
with  men,  and  of  all  the  obligations  assumed  by  men 
in  their  covenant  with  God.  Hence,  circumcision, 
at  the  time  of  its  institution,  was  expressly  declared 
to  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  subsisting  between 
God  and  men.     Gen.  17:  11. 

The  token  of  a  covenant,  as  the  word  is  here 
used,  is  the  same  as  a  seal  of  a  covenant. 

The  circumcision  of  Abraham,  was  a  seal  of  God's 
covenant  with  men,  as  it  subsisted  between  him  and 
Abraham.  With  others  who  were  circumcised, 
whether  lineal  descendants  of  Abraham  or  not,  it  was 
a  seal  of  God's  covenant  with  men  as  it  subsisted 
between  God  and  those  persons. 

$68.  In  the  four  particulars  which  have  now  been 
specified,  circumcision  under  the  Patriarchal  and 
Mosaic  dispensations,  answered  the  same  purposes 
which  Christian  baptism  now  answers,  and  possessed 
the  same  significancy  which  Christian  baptism  now 
possesses.  These  were  all  the  essential  purposes  of 
circumcision,  and  they  are  all  the  essential  purposes 
of  Christian  baptism. 

Circumcision  was  required  to  be  administered  to 
infants  and   young  children  on  the  ground  of  the 


to  cinci'Mt  aaifl r.  131 

church-membership  of  their  parents.  This  require 
incut  was  insisted  upon  us  of  the  utmost  importance, 
and  might,  on  no  account,  be  neglected. 

In  m!..  dienc  to  this  law,  Abraham  circumcised  all 
his  male  cliildrcn  and  servants.  In  obedience  to  the 
same,  circumcision  continued  to  be  administered  to 
infants,  till  after  the  full  establishment  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  Christian  baptism  was  instituted  be- 
fore circumcision  was  abolished.  Being  similar  in 
design  and  import  to  circumcision,  it  must  have  been 
administered  to  the  same  subjects.  There  is  a  pro- 
priety in  its  administration  to  the  same  subjects,  and 
in  the  absence  of  any  specific  information,  relating 
to  the  subjects  of  Christian  baptism,  as  comprehend- 
ing or  not  comprehending  infants,  we  are  authorized 
to  infer,  from  the  similarity  of  Christian  baptism  to 
circumcision  in  design  and  significancy,  that  infants 
were  comprehended. 

If  baptism  performs  the  same  office  in  the  Chris- 
tain  church  which  circumcision  performed  in  the 
Patriarchal  and  Mosaic  churches,  the  natural  infer- 
ence is,  that  it  ought  to  be  administered  to  the  same 
subjects,  and  on  the  same  conditions.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  any  specific  information,  limiting  the  sub- 
jects of  Christian  baptism  to  adults,  the  inference, 
from  its  resemblance  to  circumcision,  that  it  ought 
to  be  extended  to  infants,  and  was  extended  to  them, 
becomes  most  clear  and  certain. 

If  infants  were  fit  subjects  of  circumcision  former- 
ly, they  arc  fit  subjects  of  baptism  now.  If  there 
was  a  propriety  in  their  being  circumcised  formerly, 
there  is  a  propriety  in  their  being  baptized  now. 
Infant  nature  has  not  altered  since  the  days  of  Abra- 
ham. The  essential  conditions,  liabilities  and  capac- 
ities of  infant  children,  are  the  same  as  formerly. 


132  ANALOGY   OF   BAPTISM 

Their  privileges  ought  not,  therefore,  to  be  abridged. 
No  higher  qualifications  are  required  for  baptism, 
than  were  formerly  required  for  circumcision.  In- 
fants had  all  the  requisite  qualifications  for  circum- 
cision; therefore,  they  have  all  the  requisite  qualifi- 
cations for  baptism. 

§89.  The  analogy  of  Christian  baptism  to  circum- 
cision was  believed  and  taught  by  the  early  Christian 
fathers.  Justin  Martyr,  converted  132,  A.  D.,  and 
beheaded  164,  A.  D.,  writes  thus:  "We  Gentile 
Christians  also,  who  by  him,  (Christ,)  have  access  to 
God,  have  not  received  that  circumcision  according  to 
the  flesh,  but  that  circumcision  which  is  spiritual;  and 
moreover,  for  indeed  we  were  sinners,  we  have  re- 
ceived this  circumcision  in  baptism,  for  the  purpose 
of  God's  mercy,  and  it  is  enjoined  on  all  to  receive 
it  in  like  manner." 

Chrysostom  says :  "  There  was  pain  and  trouble 
in  Jewish  circumcision,  but  our  circumcision,  I  mean 
the  grace  of  baptism,  gives  cure  without  pain;  and 
this  for  infants  as  well  as  men."     Horn,  on  Gen.  40. 

Hence,  also,  Fidus,  250,  A.  D.,  hesitated  to  bap- 
tise infants  before  they  were  eight  days  old  and 
thought  that  the  Jewish  law  respecting  circumcising 
children  at  eight  days  of  age  ought  to  be  observed 
in  respect  to  the  baptism  of  infants. 

§70.  I  have  thought  proper  to  base  the  argument 
from  circumcision,  in  favor  of  infant  baptism  upon 
the  analogy  of  baptism  to  circumcision.  Some  have 
chosen  to  base  it  on  a  substitution  of  Christian  bap- 
tism for  circumcision.  The  reasoning  will  then 
stand  thus. 

Christian  baptism  is  substituted  for  circumcision, 
as  a  seal  of  covenant  relations  to  God,  and  of  church 


TO   CrRClMC  TSI<>\.  133 

membership.  Circumcision  was  administered  to  in- 
fanta belonging  to  pious  families;  therefore,  Christian 
baptism  ought  to  be  administered  to  infants  in  like 

circumstances. 

The  conclusion  of  this  argument  is  a  legitimate 
deduction  from  the  premises,  and  if  the  entire  argu- 
ment is  in  any  respect  defective,  that  defect  must 
pertain  to  the  promise  in  which  it  is  asserted,  that 
Christian  baptism  is  substituted  for  circumcision. 

It  is  denied  by  some,  that  Christian  baptism  is  sub- 
stituted for  circumcision,  on  the  ground  that  this  rite 
was  instituted  before  circumcision  was  abrogated. — 
How,  says  the  objector,  can  one  ordinance  be  substi- 
tuted for  another,  when  it  is  instituted  before  that 
other  is  abrogated?  As  long  as  circumcision  con- 
tinued to  be  in  use,  no  co-existing  rite  could  be  a 
substitute  for  it.  This  objection  is  valid  only  for  the 
time  which  followed  the  institution  of  Christian  bap- 
tism, and  preceded  the  abrogation  of  circumcision. 
Two  ordinances  of  similar  import  and  design,  estab- 
lished at  different  times,  may  be  observed  together 
for  an  indefinite  period,  and  then  the  one  last  adopted 
may  supplant  the  other,  and  become  a  legitimate  sub- 
stitute for  it. 

So  it  was  with  circumcision  and  baptism.  They 
were  instituted  at  different  times,  and  were  ordinan- 
ces of  similar  import  and  design.  For  a  few  years 
they  were  observed  together,  but  after  a  while  cir- 
cumcision was  abrogated,  and  Christian  baptism 
thenceforward  was  used  alone  for  the  same  purposes 
as  before,  and  for  the  same  purposes  essentially  for 
which  circumcision  had  been  used  from  the  days  of 
Abraham  till  the  conversion  of  Cornelius. 

Considered  as  a  rite  of  initiation  into  the  church 
of  God,  and  as  a  seal  of  covenant  relations  and  obli- 


134  ANALOGY   OF   BAPTISM,    ETC. 

gations  between  God  and  man;  therefore  Christian 
baptism  is  a  substitute  for  Christian  circumcision.  It 
became  so  at  the  time  when  circumcision  was  abro- 
gated. Previous  to  that  time,  it  was  a  concomitant 
seal,  used  for  the  same  purposes  essentially  as  cir- 
cumcision, but  serving  to  distinguish  the  Christian 
Jew  from  the  unchristian  Jew.  This  use  of  Chris- 
tian baptism  arose  from  the  fact  that  the  Jewish 
church  had,  to  a  considerable  extent,  abandoned  the 
legitimate  principles  of  Judaism,  and  that  it  became 
expedient  to  separate  the  spiritual  Jews  from  the  un- 
spiritual,  or  the  true  Jews  from  the  false. 

The  substitution  of  Christian  baptism  for  circum- 
cision considered  as  a  seal  of  covenant  relations  and 
obligations,  is  extremely  obvious.  At  first,  circum- 
cision was  practiced  alone  as  a  seal  of  the  covenant 
subsisting  between  God  and  man.  Then  from  the 
commencement  of  the  public  ministry  of  Christ,  till 
the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  they  were  practiced  to- 
gether as  joint  seals  of  this  covenant;  and  after  the 
conversion  of  Cornelius,  Christian  baptism  was  prac- 
ticed alone  as  a  seal  of  the  same  covenant. 

God's  gracious  covenant  with  man  was  one  per- 
manent arrangement  entered  into  and  sealed  at  the 
time  of  Abraham.  This  arrangement  still  exists, 
with  baptism  substituted  for  circumcision;  that  is, 
with  circumcision  its  first  seal  abrogated,  and  baptism 
substituted  in  its  place. 


ABRAIIAMIC    COVENANT.  135 


CHAPTER  X. 

PERPETUITY   OF  THE   ABRAHAMIC 
COVENANT. 

Third  argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism. 

$71.  The  Abrahamic  covenant  continues  in  full 
force.  God  appeared  to  Abraham  and  granted  him 
on  several  occasions  great  and  precious  promises. — 
These  promises  were  renewed,  and  the  relations  of 
God  to  Abraham  were  reduced  to  the  form  of  a  sol- 
emn religious  covenant  on  the  occasion  referred  to 
in  Gen.  17.  This  covenant  consists  of  certain  prom- 
ises and  requirements,  to  which  Abraham  gives  his 
assent,  by  submitting  to  a  religious  rite  affixed  as  a 
seal  of  the  arrangement. 

The  promises  are  briefly  comprehended  in  this; 
v.  7.  "  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and 
thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations, 
for  an  everlasting  covenant;  to  be  a  God  to  thee  and 
to  thy  seed  after  thee." 

Other  promises  and  specifications  may  all  be  con- 
sidered as  comprehended  in  this.  That  God  should 
be  a  God  to  us  and  to  our  descendants  after  us,  is  all 
that  we  need,  and  all  that  we  can  desire.  This  is 
the  tenor  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham.  The  lead- 
ing terms  of  this  covenant  are  suited  to  the  condition 
of  mankind  in  all  ages  and  countries.  Some  speci- 
fications were  added  which  pertain  to  the  particular 
descendants  of  Abraham,  and  to  their  destination 
under  the  former  dispensation.  But  in  respect  to  its 
spiritual  provisions,  and  in  respect  to  temporal  bless- 


136  ABRAHAMIC    COVENANT. 

ings  generally,  it  is  equally  suited  to  the  condition  of 
all  men,  at  all  times,  and  under  all  dispensations  of 
grace. 

This  covenant  was  the  basis  of  the  Mosaic  dispen- 
sation. When  the  Mosaic  rites  were  disused  it 
remained  unrevoked. 

The  Mosaic  rites  were  no  part  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant. 

Paul  puts  forth  an  elaborate  argument  in  favor  of 
this  position,  in  the  third  chapter  of  Galatians.  He 
informs  us  that  they  who  are  of  faith  are  the  children 
of  Abraham ;  v.  7.  That  Christ  has  redeemed  us 
from  the  curse  of  the  law ;  that  the  blessing  of  Abra- 
ham might  come  on  the  gentiles  through  Jesus 
Christ;  v.  13,  14.  That  this  covenant  was  not  dis- 
annulled or  superseded  by  the  law;  v.  17.  That  we 
are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ; 
v.  26 ;  and  that,  if  we  are  Christ's,  then  we  are  Abra- 
ham's seed  and  heirs,  according  to  the  promise; 
v.  29. 

A  more  explicit  evidence  of  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  could  not  be  given.  Not  only 
an  apostolic  assertion,  but  an  apostolic  argument 
is  put  on  record  in  its  support. 

Here  then  we  have  a  perpetual  covenant  in  ac- 
cordance with  which  God  dispenses  blessings  to 
mankind.  This  covenant  was  esteemed  infinitely 
precious  in  former  times.  It  is  still  precious  in  the 
view  of  all  who  properly  understand  it. 

At  the  time  of  its  establishment,  it  was  a  sealed 
arrangement.  Circumcision  was  its  seal.  This  seal 
continued  till  after  the  commencement  of  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation. 


ABRAIIAMIC    COVENANT.  137 

57*2.  Seals  arc  liable  to  be  altered,  and  aro  often 
lltered  for  good  and  sufficient  reasons.  After  the 
seal  of  circumcision  had  been  in  use  more  than 
1,900  yean* God  saw  fit  to  abrogate  it,  together  with 
th«'  Mosaic  rites  of  religious  worship. 

Its  abrogation  did  not  take  place  till  several  years 
after  the  crucifixion.  The  first  indication  which  the 
apostles  received  of  its  abrogation,  was  in  A.  D.  41, 
in  connection  with  the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  the 
Roman  Centurion.  Peter  was  called  upon  to  asso- 
ciate with  Cornelius  and  his  friends,  on  terms  which 
were  entirely  inconsistent  writh  established  Jewish 
usages.  Cornelius  and  his  gentile  friends  appear  to 
have  been  baptized  and  admitted  to  the  Christian 
church  without  circumcision,  and  were  the  first  un- 
circumcised  converts  of  whom  we  have  any  account. 

Here  then,  for  the  first  time,  the  ancient  seal  of 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  omitted  by  divine  au- 
thority. The  omission  of  it,  however,  did  not  pass 
without  notice. 

On  his  return  to  Jerusalem,  Peter  was  called  to 
account  for  his  violation  of  the  established  and  hither- 
to sacred  usages  of  the  Jews,  in  reference  to  Corne- 
lius and  his  friends.  He  explains  the  whole  matter, 
showing  that  he  had  done  nothing  of  himself,  but 
had  acted  under  the  authority  antf  special  direction 
of  God.  His  statements  were  satisfactory.  They 
showed  the  disciples  generally  what  Peter  then,  for 
the  first  time,  understood,  that  the  Mosaic  rites, 
together  with  circumcision,  the  ancient  seal  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  were  no  longer  valid  and  no 
longer  obligatory.     Acts  11 :  1-18. 

So  strong,  however,  was  the  attachment  of  the 
Jewish  Christians  to  the  Mosaic  rites,  that  the  sub- 
ject was  brought  up  again  in  a  council  of  the  elders 
10 


138  ABRAHAMIC    COVENANT. 

and  apostles,  held  at  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  49;  eight 
years  subsequent  to  the  time  when  Cornelius  was 
converted. 

After  a  full  discussion  of  the  subject  in  this  coun- 
cil, the  disuse  of  the  Mosaic  rites  and  circumcision 
was  unanimously  agreed  to,  as  being  in  conformity 
with  the  will  of  God.  The  grounds  on  which  the 
decision  was  made,  were  the  divine  communications 
made  directly  and  indirectly  to  Peter,  on  the  occasion 
of  his  preaching  the  gospel  to  Cornelius,  the  authori- 
ty and  practice  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  prophecies 
relating  to  the  subject,  which  were  recited  and  ex- 
pounded by  James,  President  of  the  Council.  Acts 
15:  1-29. 

In  this  manner,  circumcision  and  the  Mosaic  rites 
of  religious  worship,  comprehending  the  observance 
of  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  as  a  sabbath,  were  for- 
mally abrogated. 

The  Abrahamic  covenant,  agreeably  to  the  reason- 
ings of  Paul,  already  adduced,  remained  in  full  force. 
All  the  great  principles  of  the  former  dispensation 
remained. 

§  73.  The  reasons  for  the  great  change  now  re- 
ferred to  are,  ne  where  in  the  scriptures,  particularly 
explained.  It  is  not  the  manner  of  God ;  neither 
does  it  suit  the  dignity  of  the  Divine  Majesty  to  go 
unnecessarily  into  explanations  of  the  reasons  of  his 
procedure.  It  is  proper  for  us  humbly  to  investigate 
these  reasons  as  far  as  they  may  appear,  and  rever- 
ently to  wait  for  illumination  where  they  do  not  ap- 
pear. 

Several  reasons,  however,  are  obvious,  showing  a 
propriety  both  in  the  discontinuance  of  circumcision 
and  the  Mosaic  rites. 


AI!K.\TI\MTC    COVENANT.  130 

The  antitype  of  tlic  Patriarchal  and  Mosaic  sacri- 
fices baring  come  and  performed  his  appropriate  work, 
it  w;is  tit  that  there  should  be  a  change  in  those  insti- 
tutions, corresponding  with  the  altered  light  in  which 
their  antitype  was  henceforth  to  be  viewed.  This 
accounts  for  the  disuse  of  sacrifices.  Other  Jewish 
typical  ceremonies  were  intimately  associated  with 
these,  and  naturally  stood  or  fell  with  them. 

The  Abrahamic  covenant  too,  had,  in  addition  to 
its  general  provisions,  adapted  to  all  times,  its  Jewish 
peculiarities,  which  had  now  received  their  accom- 
plishment. An  alteration  of  its  seal  corresponds  to 
the  renewed  form  which  that  covenant  henceforth  as- 
sumed, and  marked  a  new  era  in  its  administration. 

But  the  main  reason  that  appears  for  the  disuse  of 
the  Mosaic  rites  and  of  circumcision,  was,  that  the 
unrcformed  Jewish  branch  of  the  church  was  rejected 
from  being  any  longer  a  part  of  the  true  church;  and 
it  was  desirable  that  the  reformed  branch  of  it  which 
had  embraced  Christianity  should  be  reorganized  in 
a  different  form,  in  order  to  indicate  this  fact. 

§74.  But  though  altered  in  form,  the  Christian 
church  embraces  the  true  seed  of  Abraham,  and  is 
built  on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets, 
Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  comer  stone. 
Hence  Peter  says,  in  connection  with  the  injunction 
to  repent  and  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  the  assurance  that  those  who  did  so  should  re- 
ceive the  Holy  Spirit,  Acts  2 :  39 ;  "  For  the  promise 
is  to  you  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar 
off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 

The  Abrahamic  covenant,  still  remaining  in  force 
in  respect  to  its  main  provisions,  it  ought  to  have  a 
seal.     If  the  old  seal  is  disused,  it  ought  to  have  a 


140  ABRAHAMIC    COVENANT. 

new  one,  to  be  applied  like  the  old.  There  is  the 
same  demand  now  for  a  seal  to  this  covenant  as  for- 
merly. The  seal  was  formerly  applied  to  believing 
adults  and  their  children.  The  renewed  seal  ought, 
therefore,  to  be  so  applied.  Is  there  any  such  seal? 
Or  has  God  abrogated  the  old  seal  and  given  us  none 
in  its  place  ?  If  he  has  given  us  a  new  seal,  to  take 
the  place  of  circumcision,  the  old  one,  what  is  it? 
I  answer,  it  is  baptism.  Baptism  signifies  what  cir- 
cumcision signified,  and  seals  what  circumcision 
sealed.  It  seals  men  as  the  servants  of  God.  Bap- 
tism, therefore,  occupies,  in  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, the  place  formerly  occupied  by  circumcision,  in 
the  Patriarchal  and  Mosaic  dispensations.  It  is, 
therefore,  suitable  to  serve  as  a  seal  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  in  its  renewed  form ;  and  in  the  absence  of 
any  other  seal,  must  be  presumed  to  be  that  seal. 

We  are  not  left,  however,  to  inference  and  analo- 
gy on  this  subject.  We  have  explicit  scriptural  tes- 
timony to  establish  this  point. 

Col.  2:  11,  12.  "In  whom  also  ye  are  circum- 
cised with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  by 
putting  ofT  the  sins  of  the  carnal  body,  by  the  cir- 
cumcision of  Christ,  being  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tism.'" Baptism  is  here  called  the  circumcision  of 
Christ,  or  Christian  circumcision.  This  must  mean 
that  baptism  is  now  what  circumcision  was  formerly. 
It  cannot  mean  any  thing  else.  It  is,  therefore,  a 
direct  scriptural  evidence,  that  baptism  is  a  seal  of 
the  same  covenant  now,  of  which  circumcision  was 
the  seal  formerly. 

$75.  The  perpetuity  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
as  a  fundamental  law  of  the  Christian  dispensation, 
may  be   proved  by  an  independent  argument  from 


ABRAJIAMIC    COVENANT.  141 

Acts  2 :  3$  89.  "  Then  Peter  said  to  them,  repent 
and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  to  the  name  of 
Jeetlfl  Chllflt,  (or  the  remission  of  sins;  and  ye  sliall 
r<  ceive  tin'  ^ii't  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  promise 
is  to  you  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar 
offj  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 

The  promise  here  spoken  of  must  relate  to  the 
bestowment  of  the  blessings  mentioned  in  the  pre- 
ceding rewe.  These  are  comprehended  under  the 
titles  of  remission  of  sins  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  promise,  therefore,  must  relate  to  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  the  sanctifying  influences  of 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  or,  in  other  words,  to  bestowing  sal- 
vation in  the  gospel  dispensation. 

Thus  interpreted,  the  doctrine  of  this  passage  is, 
that  in  the  gospel  dispensation,  salvation  is  offered  to 
us  and  our  children.  This  doctrine  is  proposed  as  a 
reason  for  repenting  and  being  baptized.  Repent 
and  be  baptized  says  the  apostle,  because  salvation  is 
promised  to  you,  and  to  your  children  on  these  con- 
ditions. The  mention  of  children  in  this  connection 
is  remarkable,  and  deserves  to  be  well  considered. 
It  is  the  more  worthy  of  consideration  on  account  of 
its  occurring  in  the  first  gospel  sermon  which  was 
delivered  after  the  resurrection. 

Soon  after  this,  we  have  an  account  of  another  dis- 
course by  the  same  apostle,  and  in  it  a  passage  simi- 
lar to  that  above  mentioned.  Acts  3:  19,20;  "Re- 
pent ye,  therefore,  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins 
may  be  blotted  out,  when  the  times  of  refreshing 
shall  come  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord;  and  he 
shall  send  Jesus  Christ,  who  before  was  preached  to 
you.*"  V.  25;  "Ye  are  the  children  of  the  prophets, 
and  of  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  our 
fathers,  saying  to  Abraham,  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all 


142  ABRAHAMIC    COVENANT. 

the  kindreds  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  Children  of 
the  prophets  may  mean  descendants  of  the  prophets, 
or  disciples  of  the  prophets.  The  language  was  ap- 
plicable to  the  Jews  in  both  senses.  They  were,  to 
some  extent,  the  descendants  of  the  prophets,  and 
were  generally  their  disciples. 

Children  of  the  covenant  made  with  their  fathers, 
means  heirs  of  that  covenant.  The  covenant  made 
with  their  fathers  embraced  the  promise  of  the  Mes- 
siah, and  other  spiritual  blessings.  Their  title  to  the 
blessings  promised  in  that  covenant  is  assigned  as  a 
reason  why  they  should  repent  and  become  Chris- 
tians. One  of  the  most  important  provisions  of  the 
covenant  referred  to  was,  that  God  would  be  a  God 
to  his  servants,  and  to  their  children  after  them. 
Gen.  17:7. 

Here  then,  in  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  when  many  of  the  hearers  were 
foreigners  and  ignorant  of  Christian  principles,  (Acts 
2 :  9-  11,)  and  on  a  subsequent  occasion,  not  far  from 
the  same  time,  we  have,  first,  the  annunciation  that 
the  promise  of  salvation,  under  the  Messiah,  is  to  us 
and  our  children;  and  secondly,  an  appeal  made  to 
the  Jews  as  heirs  of  the  covenant  made  by  God  with 
the  patriarchs  of  the  former  dispensation;  both  as- 
signed as  reasons  for  repenting  and  becoming  Chris- 
tians. 

The  promise  of  spiritual  blessings  in  being  to  us 
and  our  children,  is  essentially  the  same  as  in  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  in  which  it  is  said:  Gen.  17:  7. 
"  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee, 
and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations;  to  be  a 
God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.'"  The  prom- 
ise of  spiritual  blessings  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
to  them  and  their  children  after  them,  was  the  ground 


ABRAHAMIC    COVENANT.  143 

of  infant  circumcision.  The  similar  promise  of  spir- 
itual blessings  to  us  and  our  children,  under  the  gos- 
prl  dispensation,  is  an  equally  substantial  ground  for 
infant  baptism. 

Under  the  former  dispensations,  spiritual  blessings 
were  dispensed  to  parents  and  their  children,  and  in 
conformity  to  this  arrangement,  circumcision,  the  seal 
of  God's  covenant,  was  applied  to  the  children  of 
God's  people.  Under  the  Christian  dispensation,  the 
promise  is,  that  spiritual  blessings  shall  be  dispensed 
to  parents  and  their  children,  just  as  formerly. — 
Hence,  baptism,  the  seal  of  covenant  or  promised 
spiritual  blessings,  ought  to  be  applied  to  the  children 
of  God's  people,  as  much  as  to  adult  converts. 

God's  promises  in  respect  to  spiritual  blessings, 
are  his  covenant,  or  his  part  of  the  covenant  subsist- 
ing between  him  and  his  people.  God's  covenant, 
therefore,  so  far  as  children  are  concerned,  is  the 
same  as  it  was  formerly.  It  embraces  all  adult 
Christians  and  their  children. 

The  continuance  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  re- 
quires a  joint  participation  of  children  with  their 
parents  in  Christian  baptism,  the  seal  of  covenant 
relations  to  God. 


144  SUBJECTS   DESIGNATED 


CHAPTER  XL 


DESIGNATING  THE  SUBJECTS  OF  CHRISTIAN 
BAPTISM  BY  GENERAL  TERMS. 

Fourth  argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism. 

$76.  The  terms  which  describe  the  subjects  of 
Christian  baptism  in  the  scriptures  comprehend  in- 
fants. 

This  is  the  case  in  respect  to  John's  baptism. — 
It  is  said,  Matt.  3 :  5,  6,  that  "  all  Jerusalem  and  all 
Judea  and  all  the  country  round  about  Jordan  went 
out  to  him  and  were  baptized  by  him  at  Jordan ; n 
and  in  Mark  1 :  5,  that  "  all  the  land  of  Judea,  and 
they  of  Jerusalem,  were  baptized  by  him  at  the  river 
Jordan,  confessing  their  sins." 

The  terms  here  made  use  of  to  describe  the  sub- 
jects of  John's  baptism,  are  of  the  most  comprehen- 
sive kind.  All  of  a  people  include  infants  equally 
with  adults. 

The  declaration  that  they  were  baptized,  confess- 
ing their  sins,  does  not  militate  against  the  idea  that 
infants  were  included  among  them.  Because,  if 
confession  of  sins  was  made  generally  by  adults,  the 
language  made  use  of  by  the  evangelist  would  be 
perfectly  appropriate,  though  infants  made  no  con- 
fession. 

The  question  whether  infants  were  baptized  by 
John,  is  a  question  of  interpretation.  The  appropri- 
ate answer  to  it  depends  on  the  right  interpretation 
of  the  terms  denoting  the  subjects  of  his  baptism  in 
the  passages  of  scripture  above  referred  to. 


BY    GENERAL  TERMS.  145 

Unless  some  restriction  is  put  upon  those  terms, 
they  most  be  interpreted  as  comprehending  infants 
If  ih'  I  are  to  I"-  restricted,  on  what  grounds  is  this 
restriction  to  be  made?  We  may  not  restrict  the 
meaning  of  general  terms  without  reason.  Shall 
these  terms  he  restricted  to  adults  on  the  ground 
that  infantfl  are  not  fit  subjects  of  baptism?  That 
assumption  is  false.  Baptism  was  applied  to  infants 
from  the  days  of  Moses  to  those  of  John,  and  the 
fitness  of  infants  to  receive  it  does  not  appear  ever 
to  have  been  questioned.  It  is  too  late,  therefore, 
to  assume  it  now.  If  infants  were  fit  subjects  of 
baptism,  we  infer,  that  they  were  comprehended  un- 
der the  terms  made  use  of  by  the  evangelist  to  de- 
scribe the  subjects  of  John's  baptism ;  and  conse- 
quently, that  they  participated  with  their  parents  in 
the  reception  of  that  ordinance. 

If  John's  baptism  included  infants  among  its  sub- 
jects, Christian  baptism  must  have  done  the  same. — 
For  they  appear  to  have  been  kindred  institutions. 
• 

$77.  Matt.  28 :  19,  contains  the  injunction,  "teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  to  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  word 
them,  in  this  passage,  which  denotes  the  subjects  of 
baptism,  stands  for  all  nations.  All  nations,  there- 
fore, are  to  be  baptized.  This  term  always  includes 
infants,  unless  there  is  some  obvious  reason  for  ex- 
cepting them,  either  in  the  predicate  or  in  the  context. 

The  nature  of  baptism  presents  no  reason  for  ex- 
cepting infants,  for  it  was  common  to  baptize  them ; 
and  the  laws  of  God  had  required  such  baptism  for 
nearly  two  thousand  years.  The  context  furnishes 
no  evidence  of  their  being  excepted;  therefore,  we 
are  authorised  to  infer  that  the  apostolic  commission 


146  SUBJECTS    DESIGNATED 

to  baptize,  required  them  to  baptize  the  infants  of 
believing  adults  equally  with  their  parents. 

Mark  16 :  16,  in  which  it  is  declared  that  "he  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved;  and  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned,"  proves  nothing 
against  the  interpretation  of  Matt.  28 :  19  as  enjoin- 
ing the  baptism  of  infants. 

In  respect  to  adult  persons,  faith  ought  to  precede 
being  baptized.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized, 
is  the  natural  mode  of  referring  to  faith  and  baptism, 
on  the  supposition  that  infants  were  baptized.  It 
therefore  proves  nothing  against  that  supposition. — 
In  order  to  prove  any  thing  against  that  supposition, 
it  ought  to  be  incompatible  with  it. 

$78.  In  Acts  16:  14,  15,  it  is  said  that  "  a  certain 
woman  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  purple,  of  the  city 
of  Thyatira,  who  worshiped  God,  heard  [the  gospel] 
whose  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she  attended  to 
the  things  which  were  spoken  by  Paul.  And  when 
she  was  baptized,  and  her  household,  she  besought 
us,  saying,  if  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the 
Lord,  come  into  my  house  and  abide  there :  and  she 
constrained  us." 

We  are  here  told  that  Lydia  heard  the  gospel 
preached;  that  the  Lord  opened  her  heart  so  that 
she  attended  to  the  things  spoken  by  Paul ;  and  then 
that  she  was  baptized  and  her  household,  or  family. 
It  does  not  appear  that  her  family  heard  the  gospel, 
or  believed,  but  that,  they  were  baptized  on  her  ac- 
count. If  this  family  contained  infants,  they  must 
have  been  baptized,  and  baptized  on  Lydia's  account. 
The  word  translated  family  in  its  ordinary  and  proper 
meaning  comprehends  infants.  Unless  restricted  to 
adults,  it  must  comprehend  them  here.     No  such  re- 


15V    eJUMKAL    TSBXB.  1-17 

tion  is  required  l>y  tin?  nature  of  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  or  by  the  context,-  therefore,  none  is  to 
be  assumed. 

$79.  In  Acts  16 :  32,  33,  it  is  said  that  Paul  and 
Silas  spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  the  Philippian 
jailer  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house.  "And  he 
(the  jailer,)  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night, 
and  washed  their  stripes  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all 
his,  straightway.'" 

After  the  word  his,  near  the  close  of  this  passage, 
family  is  to  be  supplied.  It  appears,  therefore,  that 
the  jailer  was  baptized  and  all  his  family.  Whether 
there  were  infants  in  his  family  or  not,  is  not  specifi- 
ed. The  word  family,  naturally  comprehends  infants, 
and  we  have  a  right  to  infer  that  it  is  to  be  interpre- 
ted as  comprehending  them  here,  unless  they  are  ex- 
cluded by  the  nature  of  the  predicate  baptized,  or 
by  the  context.  The  nature  of  baptism  does  not 
exclude  them.  The  context  does  not  exclude  them. 
An  attempt  has  sometimes  been  made  to  exclude 
them  by  the  context  because  it  is  said  that  the  apos- 
tle spake  the  word  to  all  that  were  in  the  jailer's 
house,  and  that  the  jailer  rejoiced,  believing  in  God 
with  all  his  family. 

These  modes  of  expression  imply  that  there  were 
adult  persons  in  his  family  besides  himself,  to  whom 
the  word  was  preached,  and  that  tiiese  believed. — 
But  they  imply  nothing  against  the  supposition,  that 
his  family  comprehended  infants  too. 

§80.  In  1.  Cor.  1 :  16,  Paul  says,  "I baptized  the 
family  of  Stephanas."  Of  what  persons  or  what  de- 
scription of  persons  this  family  consisted,  we  are  not 
informed.     The  term  family  is  of  sufficient  compre- 


148  SUBJECTS    DESIGNATED 

hension  to  embrace  infants,  and  does  naturally  and 
usually  embrace  them. 

Family,  with  us,  is  used  to  denote  children,  either 
inclusive  or  exclusive  of  one  or  both  of  their  parents. 
Thus  we  speak  of  a  man  who  has  children,  as  having 
a  family,  and  one  who  has  no  children,  as  having 
no  family.  When  a  widow  is  left  with  several  chil- 
dren, we  speak  of  her  as  being  left  with  a  large  fami- 
ly. So  persons  are  spoken  of  as  subjects  of  family 
sickness,  when  sickness  relating  to  children  is  in- 
tended. 

A  similar  usage  prevails  in  the  scriptures,  1  Tim. 
3:4;  "One  that  ruleth  his  own  family  well,  having 
his  children  in  subjection  with  all  gravity .,"  V.  12; 
"Let  the  deacons  be  the  husbands  of  one  wife, 
ruling  their  children  and  their  own  families  well.'" 
5:  14;  "I  will,  therefore,  that  the  younger  women 
marry,  bear  children,  guide  the  family." 

The  term  family,  in  each  of  the  above  passages, 
denotes  chiefly  children.  This  is  the  term  made  use 
of  to  describe  the  subjects  of  Christian  baptism,  in 
several  passages  in  the  New  Testament.  Lydia  and 
her  family,  therefore,  means  Lydia  and  her  children. 
The  jailer  at  Philippi,  and  his  family,  means  the 
jailer  and  his  children;  and  the  family  of  Stephanas 
means  the  children  of  Stephanas.  In  these  three 
cases,  it  is  expressly  said,  that  the  families  of  parti- 
cular persons  were  baptized. 

In  Acts  11 :  13,  14,  the  family  of  Cornelius  is  men- 
tioned separately  from  himself,  as  to  participate  with 
him  in  salvation.  "Whereby  thou  and  all  thy  family 
shall  be  saved.1"  Cornelius  and  all  his  family  were  to 
be  saved  by  means  of  the  preaching  of  Peter. 

In  Acts  18:  8,  we  arc  informed  that  "  Crispus,  lli< 
chief  ruler  of  the  Synagogue,  believed  in  the  Lord 


n    GENERAL  TERMS.  1  10 

wilh   all   liis   funnily;  and  many  of  the   Corinthians, 
hearing,  believed  and  were  baptized." 

Thu  fimilies  of  Cornelius  and  Crispus  mean, 
chiefly,  the  children  of  those  persons.  Their  ages 
are  not  specified.  Some  were  probably  of  sufficient 
ige  to  become  believers  and  be  baptized  on  account 
of  lh<ir  faith;  others,  for  aught  that  appears,  may 
have  been  infants,  which,  if  baptized  at  all,  must 
have  been  received  as  infant  saints,  or  faithfuls,  and 
not  as  adult  believers. 

{81.  The  only  account  which  we  have  of  the 
subjects  of  Christian  baptism  in  the  scriptures,  is  ex- 
pressed in  general  terms,  such  as  have  been  cited 
above.  If  baptism  was  not  to  be  restricted  to  per- 
sons of  any  age,  the  use  of  these  terms  is  an  ap- 
propriate and  sufficiently  distinct  and  perspicuous 
description  of  its  subjects.  But  on  the  supposition 
that  it  was  to  be  restricted  to  adults,  the  terms  de- 
scriptive of  its  subjects  in  the  scriptures  are  not  as 
specific  as  they  should  be,  in  order  to  withhold  us 
from  error. 

The  scriptures  describe  the  subjects  of  baptism  by 
the  use  of  terms  which  include  infants  equally  with 
adults.  There  is  no  specific  restriction  of  these 
terms  to  adults,  in  any  single  case.  Therefore,  they 
ought  not  to  be  restricted.  If  we  restrict  them  we 
do  it  on  our  own  responsibility,  and  contrary  to  the 
well  established  laws  of  interpretation,  as  they  relate 
to  all  languages  both  ancient  and  modem. 


150  EXCLUSION   OF   INFANTS 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  ABSENCE  OF  ANY  EXCLUSION  OF  INFANTS 
FROM  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Fifth  argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism. 

§82.  The  scriptures  do  not,  in  any  instance,  ex- 
clude infants  from  a  participation  with  their  parents 
in  Christian  baptism. 

In  some  cases,  not  to  exclude  persons  from  parti- 
cular privileges,  is  the  same  as  to  include  them 
among  the  subjects  of  such  privileges.  This  is  be- 
lieved to  have  been  the  case  with  respect  to  infants, 
considered  in  relation  to  Christian  baptism.  Chris- 
tian baptism  was  introduced  in  the  Mosaic  church ; 
Christianity  produced  a  schism  in  that  church;  and 
Christian  baptism  was,  from  the  commencement  of 
our  Lord's  public  ministry,  administered  to  all  his 
disciples  and  followers.  The  Christian  part  of  the 
Jewish  church  formed  one  division,  and  the  anti- 
Christian  part  another. 

In  respect  to  ceremonial  institutions,  till  some 
years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  both  divisions  were 
similar.  The  Christian  division  practiced  all  the 
Mosaic  rites  equally  with  the  other.  Among  these 
were  circumcision  and  the  Mosaic  baptisms.  But, 
in  addition  to  the  Mosaic  rites,  they  also  practiced 
Christian  baptism,  as  a  rite  of  initiation  to  their 
ecclesiastical  body,  and  a  seal  of  disciplcship  to 
Christ. 


FROM    <  HKISTIAN    HAPTISM.  151 

An  account  of  Uie  origin  of  this  schism,  of  the 
organization  of  the  followers  of  Christ  into  a  separ- 
ate  body,  and  of  the  initiation  of  members  to  this 
body  by  baptism,  is  related  by  the  evangelists,  with- 
out stating  whether  infants  were  initiated  with  their 
parents,  and  on  the  ground  of  their  parents1  faith  or 
not.  Whether  they  were  thus  initiated  or  not,  is  left 
to  be  inferred.  One  or  the  other  inference  we  are  re- 
quired to  draw.  From  the  silence  of  the  inspired 
historians  respecting  them,  we  must  either  infer  that 
infants  were  admitted  to  the  Christian  division  of  tlie 
Jewish  church,  with  their  parents,  and  on  their  par- 
ents' account,  and  baptized,  or  else,  that  they  were 
rejected  and  left  unbaptized. 

We  infer  that  they  were  admitted,  because  it  was 
in  conformity  to  the  usages  of  the  church  within 
which  the  Christian  church  was  formed,  to  practice 
such  admissions.  If  this  usage  had  been  departed 
from  in  the  organization  of  the  Christian  church,  it 
ought  to  have  been  specified  in  the  evangelical  his- 
tory. But  there  is  no  such  specification.  The  whole 
subject  is  passed  over  by  the  Evangelists  in  perfect 
silence. 

We  are  not  authorized  to  suppose  the  Christian 
division  of  the  Jewish  church,  at  its  first  organiza- 
tion, to  have  differed  from  the  other  in  any  points  not 
specified.  There  is  no  specification  of  a  difference 
in  this  point;  therefore,  no  difference  can  be  legiti- 
mately inferred.  It  is  a  confirmation  of  this  argu- 
ment that  the  reception  or  rejection  of  infants  was  a 
subject  of  very  great  consequence,  and  pertaining  to 
the  fundamental  principles  of  church  organization. 
If  the  history  of  the  introduction  of  baptism,  there- 
fore, is  so  written,  that  the  baptism  of  infants  can  be 
legitimately  inferred  from  it,  we  are  fully  authorized 


152  EARLY    CONVERSION    OF   CHILDREN. 

to  believe  that  they  were  baptized,  and  that  the  evan- 
gelical history  was  designed  to  teach  this. 

The  baptism  of  infants  was  not  only  according  to 
Jewish  usage  in  respect  to  circumcision,  but  it  was 
conformable  to  it  in  respect  to  all  the  Mosaic  and 
traditionary  baptisms.  This  usage,  in  respect  to  in- 
fants, was  not  only  of  divine  authority,  but  was  most 
peremptorily  enforced.  God  had  not  only  command- 
ed it,  but  he  had  enforced  it  as  an  indispensable  and 
essential  part  of  those  religious  ordinances  which  he 
had  seen  fit  to  institute  for  the  benefit  of  men. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

PROVISION    FOR    THE    EARLY    CONVER- 
SION   OF    CHILDREN. 

Sixth  argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism. 

\  83.  God  has  made  provision  for  the  early  con- 
version and  the  salvation  of  children,  generally. 

So  far  as  the  atonement  is  concerned,  provision  is 
made  for  the  salvation  of  all  mankind.  But  children 
may  be  brought  to  avail  themselves  of  it.  Hence  it 
is  said,  in  Gen.  18:  19,  "I  know  him  [Abraham,] 
that  he  will  command  his  children,  and  his  household 
after  him,  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord, 
to  do  justice  and  judgment;  that  the  Lord  may  bring 


EARLY  CONVERSION  OF  CHILDREN.       153 

upon  Abraham  that  which  he  hath  spoken  of  him." 
Here  the  efied  <>1"  Abraham's  commanding  his  chil- 
dren and  family,  is  said  to  be,  that  they  should  keep 
the  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment. 
This  comprehends  their  becoming  truly  pious. 

Solomon  says,  Prov.  22 :  6,  "  Train  up  a  child  in 
the  way  he  should  go,  and  when  he  is  old  he  will  not 
depart  from  it."  Paul  directs,  Eph.  G:  4,  that  we 
should  bring  up  our  children  in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord. 

These  passages  of  scripture,  and  others,  clearly 
imply  that  children  may  and  ought  to  be  brought  up 
to  be  pious.  If  it  is  not  possible  to  train  up  children 
in  the  way  they  should  go,  what  is  the  propriety  of 
the  injunction  that  we  should  do  this?  What  is  the 
propriety  of  the  apostolic  injunction  to  bring  them 
up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord?  It 
is  possible,  then,  to  train  up  children,  and  educate 
them  to  be  truly  pious.  This  possibility  exists  in 
respect  to  all  children,  as  far  as  means  are  provided 
for  the  purpose. 

In  respect  to  the  children  of  the  church,  each 
parent  separately,  and  the  church  as  a  body,  are 
charged  with  the  responsibility  of  doing  this. 

Just  as  far  as  this  duty  is  faithfully  performed,  we 
see  the  children  of  the  church  converted  in  child- 
hood. The  main  hope  of  the  world  for  the  triumph 
of  Christianity  depends  not  on  the  conversion  of 
adults  by  missionary  and  other  evangelical  labors, 
but  on  the  conversion  of  the  children  of  the  church. 
Others  can  be  reached  with  difficulty.  The  children 
of  the  church  are  under  its  entire  control.  Adults 
come  into  the  church  subject  to  many  inevitable  dis- 
advantages from  previous  sins,  and  sinful  habits  and 
associations.  Children,  brought  in  from  their  infan- 
11 


154  EARLY   CONVERSION   OF   CHILDREN. 

cy,  are  not  subject  to  these  disadvantages.  They  are 
more  valuable  to  the  church  than  others  after  con- 
version, in  proportion  to  the  easiness  of  their  con- 
version. 

Parental  influence  and  other  educational  influ- 
ences, determine  the  character  of  children  generally. 
When  these  influences  "are  in  favor  of  idolatry,  chil- 
dren grow  up  to  be  idolaters ;  when  they  are  in  favor 
of  Islamism,  children  grow  up  to  be  Mahomedans ; 
when  they  are  in  favor  of  the  Papal  religion,  children 
grow  up  to  be  papists ;  when  they  are  in  favor  of  the 
different  denominations  of  protestants,  children  grow 
up  to  be  of  those  different  denominations. 

The  conversion  of  parents,  therefore,  usually  se- 
cures the  children  also.  It  ought  uniformly  to  do 
this. 

The  consecration  of  children  to  God  by  circum- 
cision, was  in  beautiful  accordance  with  the  doctrine 
of  responsibility  of  parents  for  the  piety  of  their 
children.  God  virtually  said  to  the  pious  Jew,  "  It 
belongs  to  you  to  form,  directly  or  indirectly,  the 
character  of  your  children.  You  can  form  their 
characters  for  heaven  or  hell.  I  require  you  to  form 
their  characters  for  heaven.  I  claim  them  at  your 
hand,  and  put  upon  them  the  mark  and  seal  of  my 
servants  on  your  responsibility.  Do  your  duty  to 
them,  that  when  Ihey  come  to  years  of  discretion, 
they  may  know  and  serve  me."  He  says  the  same 
to  the  pious  Christian  in  the  ordinance  of  infant  bap- 
tism. 

If  Christian  parents,  and  the  church  within  whose 
fold  children  are  born,  are  responsible  for  the  pietj 
of  their  children,  and  if  God  holds  them  responsible 
for  this  result,  how  appropriate  is  it  that  they  should 
be  baptized  on  the  ground  of  their  parents   faith! 


■ASK!    <  HRISTIAN     FATHERS.  155 

Their  hope  ifl  in  this.  Their  prospective  piety  and 
salvation  depend  upon  this.  Well,  therefore,  may 
they  be  baptized  on  the  ground  of  this  faith! 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE   EARLY  CHRIS. 
TIAN   FATHERS. 

Sixth  argument  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism. 

§84.  The  early  Christian  fathers  bear  testimony 
in  favor  of  infant  baptism. 

Tertullian. 

1.  The  earliest  explicit  testimony  of  the  Christian 
fathers,  in  respect  to  the  subjects  of  baptism,  is  given 
by  Tertullian.  Tertullian  was  bom  at  Carthage, 
about  150,  A.  D.,  and  died  in  220,  A.  D.  The  time 
of  his  conversion  is  uncertain.  He  received  a  liberal 
education,  and  was  well  versed  in  Greek  and  Roman 
literature,  and  Roman  law.  Towards  the  latter  part 
of  his  life,  he  left  the  orthodox  church  and  joined 
the  Montanists.  The  ground  of  his  separation  from 
the  orthodox  church,  related  chiefly  to  discipline  in 
regard  to  which  he  was  inclined  to  be  excessively 
austere. 


156  EARLY   CHRISTIAN    FATHERS. 

The  Montanists  claimed  superior  perfection ;  were 
generally  strict  in  the  observance  of  external  rites, 
and  placed  great  dependence  upon  them.  Montanus, 
the  founder  of  this  sect,  claimed  to  be  the  Comforter, 
and  undertook  to  perfect  the  Christian  system. 

In  conformity  with  his  extravagant  views  as  a 
Montanist,  Tertullian  discountenances  the  baptism 
of  infants,  on  the  following  grounds : 

1.  That  their  sponsors  may  not  incur  danger; 

2.  That  they  may  first  learn  the  design  of  baptism  ; 

3.  Because  their  innocent  age  does  not  require 
forgiveness  of  sins. 

With  equal  positiveness,  he  discountenances  adult 
baptisms  in  the  case  of  unmarried  persons,  and  those 
who  have  lost  their  partners  on  account  of  the  ex- 
posure of  such  to  temptation. 

Tertullian  does  not  state  explicitely  what  the 
usages  of  the  orthodox  church  in  his  time,  respecting 
the  baptism  of  infants  were.  But  he  gives  his  opin- 
ion as  to  what  they  ought  to  be,  and  assigns  his  rea- 
sons for  that  opinion. 

He  puts  the  baptism  of  infants  on  a  par  with  that 
of  unmarried  persons,  and  argues  against  both  with 
equal  positiveness,  and  on  similar  grounds.  His 
argument  against  the  baptism  of  infants,  is  a  decisive 
evidence  of  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  in  his  time. 

It  is  also  an  evidence  that  he  had  no  good 
reason  to  find  fault  with  this  practice.  For  he  may 
safely  be  presumed  to  have  adduced  against  it  the 
best  reasons  he  had.  It  would  have  been  much  to  his 
purpose  to  have  said  that  infant  baptism  was  not  of 
apostolic  origin,  that  it  was  an  innovation  upon  apos- 
tolic usages,  and  unauthorised  by  the  scriptures. — 
But  he  says  none  of  these  things. 


IAIUA'    CHRISTIAN    FATHERS.  157 

The  prevalence  of  infant  baptism  may  be  inferred 
from  the  objections  made  to  it  by  Tertullian,  and  its 
apostolic  authority  from  the  frivolous  nature  of  the  ob- 
jections which  he  alleges  against  it.  Being  a  man  of 
learning,  he  must  have  known  whether  the  baptism 
of  infants  had  been  handed  down  from  the  times  of 
the  apostles  or  not,  and  his  neglect  to  object  against 
this  usage,  the  want  of  apostolic  authority,  proves 
that  there  was  no  ground  for  such  an  objection. 


Origcn. 

§35.  Origen  was  born  at  Alexandria  185,  A.  D., 
and  early  instructed  by  his  father  in  the  sciences  and 
in  the  Christian  religion.  At  the  age  of  18,  he  be- 
came principal  of  the  catechetical  school  in  Alexan- 
dria; and  his  lectures  were  attended  by  multitudes 
of  both  sexes.  In  211,  he  went  to  Rome,  where  he 
gained  many  friends.  He  was  early  advanced  to  the 
office  of  presbyter,  and  preached  the  gospel  with 
distinguished  honor  and  success  in  different  impor- 
tant places  in  Palestine  and  Arabia.  He  died  at 
Tyre,  in  consequence  of  persecutions  which  he  en- 
dured under  the  Emperor  Decius  in  254,  A.  D. — 
Ilis  writings  were  numerous  and  valuable. 

The  following  are  among  his  testimonies  concern- 
ing the  subjects  of  baptism. 

Homily  8,  on  Leviticus  c.  12.  "According  to  the 
usage  of  the  church  baptism  is  given  to  infants  when 
if  there  were  nothing  in  infants  which  needed  for- 
giveness and  mercy,  the  grace  of  baptism  would  be 
evidently  superfluous." 

Homily  on  Luke  14:  "Infants  are  baptized  for 
the  forgiveness  of  sins.     Of  what  sins?  or  at  what 


158  EARLY   CHRISTIAN   FATHERS. 

time  have  they  sinned?  or  how  is  it  possible  that  any 
cause  for  the  laver  should  exist  in  respect  to  infants, 
except  according  to  that  sentiment  which  we  have 
expressed  a  little  before;  that  no  one  is  free  from 
defilement  even  if  his  life  has  been  but  of  a  single 
day  upon  earth.  And  because,  by  the  sacrament  of 
baptism,  native  defilement  is  taken  away,  therefore 
even  infants  are  baptized." 

Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  book  5. 
"  For  this  cause  it  was  that  the  church  received  a 
tradition  from  the  apostles  to  give  baptism  even  to 
infants.'" 

The  above  passages  are  taken  from  parts  of  Ori- 
gen's  works,  which  have  not  been  preserved  in  the 
original  Greek.  They  are,  however,  preserved  in 
ancient  translations,  which  are  entitled  to  the  highest 
confidence. 

They  teach  explicitly  two  things: 

1.  That  baptism  was  generally  applied  to  infants 
in  the  times  of  Origen  on  their  parents1  account; 

2.  That  this  usage  was  believed  to  have  been  hand- 
ed down  from  the  apostles. 

The  extensive  learning  and  travels  of  Origen,  and 
his  great  abilities  and  opportunities  of  information 
render  it  morally  impossible,  that  he  should  have 
been  mistaken  on  this  subject. 


Cyprian. 

$  86.  Cyprian  was  bom  about  200,  A.  D.,  at  Car- 
thage, and  was  descended  from  a  respectable  family. 
He  was  converted  to  Christianity  in  246.  Soon  af- 
ter this,  he  was  made  a  Presbyter;  and  in  248,  A.  D., 
was  made  bishop  of  the  church  of  Carthage.     He 


■abut  i  wamn  m  i  \  nans,  159 

was  beheaded  September  11,  ~5s,  A.  1).,  for  preach- 
ing the  gospel  in  the  gardens  neai  Carthage,  contra- 
ry to  the  decrees  of  (be  civil  authority. 

In  253,  A.  D.,  Cyprian  presided  in  a  council  com- 
posed of  sixty  six  bishops.  In  a  letter  still  extant. 
he  communicates  to  an  absent  bishop  the  decision  of 
the  council  on  a  question  respecting  infant  baptism, 
in  the  following  words: 

"  But  as  far  as  relates  to  the  case  of  infants,  who 
you  said  ought  not  to  be  presented  to  be  baptized, 
within  the  second  or  third  day  after  they  are  born, 
and  that  the  law  of  ancient  circumcision  ought  to  be 
considered;  so  that  you  supposed  that  no  one  ought 
to  be  baptized  and  sanctified  within  the  eighth  day 
after  he  was  bora,  it  seemed  far  otherwise  to  all  in 
our  council.  In  this  which  you  thought  ought  to  be 
done,  no  one  agreed,  but  we  all  rather  judged  that 
the  mercy  and  favor  of  God  ought  to  be  denied  to 
no  human  being.  x\nd,  therefore,  dearest  brother, 
this  was  our  opinion  in  council,  that  no  person  ought 
by  us  to  be  prohibited  from  baptism  and  from  the 
grace  of  God,  who  is  benignant  and  kind  to  all. — 
But  when  this  ought  to  be  observed  towards  all;  we 
supposed  that  it  ought  more  especially  to  be  observed 
towards  infants  and  persons  recently  born." 

The  above  testimony  is  decisive  in  respect  to  the 
prevalence  of  infant  baptism  in  those  times;  and  its 
supposed  scriptural  authority. 

587.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Ambrose  Chrysostom  and 
Augustine,  have  given  us  equally  explicit  testimonies 
in  favor  of  the  prevalence  of  infant  baptism  in  their 
times;  and  in  some  cases,  have  referred  to  it  as  cor- 
responding to  the  infant  circumcision  of  the  former 
dispensation. 


160  EARLY   CHRISTIAN   FATHERS. 

Augustine  declares  explicitly  the  universality  of 
infant  baptism  in  the  Christian  church,  and  asserts 
the  apostolic  authority  of  this  usage. 

While  the  above  and  similar  testimonies  assure  us 
of  the  prevalence  of  the  baptism  of  infants,  no  evi- 
dence of  any  kind  has  come  down  to  us  of  the  ex- 
clusion of  infants  from  this  rite  in  any  branch  of  the 
Christian  church  which  did  not  discard  all  baptism. 
Some  sects  are  mentioned  by  ancient  writers  who 
practiced  no  baptism  at  all,  in  this  respect,  like  the 
Quakers  of  modem  times.  But  those  who  baptized 
at  all,  baptized  infants.  At  last  this  was  generally 
the  case,  and  no  evidence  whatever  has  come  down 
to  us  to  prove  that  it  was  not  universally  so. 

§88.  The  testimony  of  the  early  Christian  fath- 
ers is  entitled  to  full  credit,  as  to  the  fact  of  the 
prevalence  of  infant  baptism  in  their  times.  It  is 
also  of  great  weight  in  favor  of  the  apostolic  origin 
of  infant  baptism.  For  they  had  means  of  investi- 
gating this  subject  historically,  which  later  ages  do 
not  possess,  and  can  never  attain.  They  had  access 
to  vast  stores  of  information  which  have  since  per- 
ished. Hundreds  of  churches  had  existed  in  unbro- 
ken lines  of  succession  from  the  times  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  the  records  of  many  of  them,  from  their 
commencement,  had  doubtless  been  preserved.  A 
reference  to  them  was  all  that  was  necessary  to  as- 
certain what  the  apostolic  usage  was.  Such  refer- 
ence could  easily  be  made,  and  doubtless  was  made 
by  the  very  persons  whose  testimonies  have  been 
adduced  and  referred  to. 

The  general  prevalence  of  infant  baptism  at  the 
early  period  above  referred  to,  cannot  be  satisfacto- 
rily accounted  for  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  not 


KARf.V    CIIRISTIAX    FATIIKRS.  101' 

of  apostolic  origin.  The  exclusion  of  infants  from 
baptism,  if  they  were  excluded,  depended  upon  no 
provincialism,  which,  according  to  Jewish  usage, 
taught  that  infants  were  not  to  be  baptised;  and  ac- 
cording to  classic  usage  taught  that  they  were  to  be 
baptised.  The  only  causes  that  can  be  assigned  for 
the  introduction  of  infant  baptism  after  the  days  of 
the  apostles  and  previous  to  the  times  of  Tertullian 
and  Origen,  are  the  apparent  fitness  of  baptism  to  be 
administered  to  infants,  the  supposed  good  to  be  at- 
tained by  it,  the  analogy  of  baptism  to  circumcision, 
and  other  considerations  of  this  kind.  These  con- 
siderations must  all  have  been  met  by  the  apostles, 
had  they  discarded  the  baptism  of  infants,  and  over- 
come ;  and  in  overcoming  them,  they  must  have  laid 
a  firm  foundation  for  the  exclusion  of  infants  from 
baptism.  But  where  was  this  foundation  laid?  Not 
in  the  New  Testament.  Not  in  any  documents 
which  continued  till  the  times  of  Origen  and  Cypri- 
an. Where,  then,  did  they  lay  it?  I  answer  no- 
where. No  such  foundation  was  laid.  If  it  had 
been  laid,  it  would  still  be  capable  of  being  found  . 
Some  vestige  of  it  at  least  would  be  discoverable. 


162  THE   BLESSING   OF   GOD 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  BLESSING  OF  GOD  ON  INFANT 
BAPTISM. 

§  89.  When  the  blessing  of  God  signally  attends 
the  observance  of  any  religious  institution,  it  is  an 
evidence  of  the  propriety  of  that  institution,  and  of 
its  agreement  with  the  will  of  God.  It  is  not  to  be 
supposed,  that  God  will  signally  bless  institutions 
which  are  not  conformable  to  his  will,  or  that  he  will 
make  such  institutions,  channels  of  his  mercy  and 
grace.  God's  appointed  institutions  are,  the  chan- 
nels of  his  mercy.  In  them,  his  blessings  flow.  In 
this  way,  he  honors  his  own  appointments.  By  this 
means,  he  makes  an  obvious  and  important  difference 
between  them  and  the  institutions  of  men. 

The  sabbath,  prayer,  and  public  religious  worship, 
may  be  referred  to,  in  proof  of  the  fact,  that  God 
distinguishes  his  own  institutions  by  his  blessing. 
God's  blessing  signally  accompanies  the  observance 
of  the  sabbath,  it  signally  accompanies  prayer  and 
public  worship;  so  much  so,  that  if  all  other  evi- 
dence of  the  divine  authority  of  these  institutions, 
should  be  suddenly  annihilated,  this,  unaided  and 
alone,  would  be  sufficient  for  their  establishment. 
The  usefulness  of  the  sabbath,  the  usefulness  of 
prayer,  the  usefulness  of  public  worship,  would 
cause  them  forever  to  be  observed,  as  sacred  and  in- 
dispensable duties,  if  all  other  evidences  in  their 
favor  were  lost.  This  usefulness,  is  the  effect  of 
God's  blessing,  and  is  a  continually  renewed  testi- 
mony of  his  will  in  regard  to  moral  actions. 


OH  imam-  baptism,  103 

The  baptism  of  infants,  with  a  recognition  of  them 
as  lambs  of  the  fold  of  Christ,  has  been  marked  with 
the  must  BignaJ  demonstrations  of  God's  favor.  It 
has  been  blessed,  in  a  high  degree,  to  parents,  as  a 
means  of  quickening  them  in  the  discharge  of  their 
parental  duties,  pertaining  to  the  moral  government 
and  religious  instruction  of  their  children,  and  a^s  a 
means  of  affording  them  consolation  under  the  re- 
moval of  their  children  by  death.  It  has  been  bless- 
ed, in  a  high  degree,  to  children,,  in  early  impressing 
their  minds  with  a  sense  of  the  obligations  impress- 
ed upon  them  by  the  baptismal  seal  and  covenant, 
and  in  early  leading  them  to  the  Savior. 

In  the  Episcopal  church,  where  the  baptism  and 
church  relations  of  infants  are  more  respected,  per- 
haps, than  in  any  other  of  the  Protestant  churches, 
especially  by  the  most  evangelical  portions  of  that 
church,  the  infant  membership  is  the  main  source 
for  the  supply  and  multiplication  of  adult  members. 
The  numerous  confirmations,  which  occur  in  the 
families  of  pious  Episcopalians,  are  so  many  testimo- 
nies of  the  excellence  of  Episcopal  principles  and 
practice  on  this  subject.  They  are  so  many  divine 
testimonies,  that  infant  church-membership  and  in- 
fant baptism,  are  in  agreement  with  the  will  of  God. 

But  the  Presbyterian  church,  though  far  behind 
the  most  spiritual  portions  of  the  Episcopal  in  a  due 
appreciation  of  infant  church-membership  and  infant 
baptism,  has  ample  experience  of  the  benefits  result- 
ing from  this  feature  of  its  system,  as  far  as  it  is 
legitimate  preserved  and  carried  out,  in  the  practice 
of  its  congregations  and  members. 


164        INFANT  BAPTISM  CONCLUDED. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

CONCLUSION    IN   FAVOR    OF    THE    BAP. 
TISM   OF    INFANTS. 

$90.  The  conclusion,  from  the  foregoing  argu- 
ments, is  clear  and  strong  in  favor  of  the  baptism  of 
infants.  That  conclusion  is  not  merely  probable.  It  is 
certain.  The  evidence  adduced,  is  incompatible  with 
the  contrary  hypothesis.  But  even  if  it  was  only 
probable,  and  probable  in  a  high  degree,  that  proba- 
bility, in  the  absence  cf  any  thing  more  decisive, 
would  be  a  legitimate  rule  of  action  to  the  church 
of  God.  It  would  be  the  indispensable  duty  of  the 
church  to  extend  Christian  baptism  to  its  infants, 
even  if  it  was  only  probable  that  Christ  and  the  apos- 
tles did  so.  Where  certain  conclusions  can  be  at- 
tained, we  ought  not  to  stop  short  of  attaining  them ; 
and  are  to  blame  if  we  do  so. 

But  where  certainty  cannot  be  attained,  we  must 
be  governed  by  probabilities.  Probabilities  are,  in 
such  cases,  as  legitimate  rules  of  moral  action,  as 
certainties  in  other  cases;  and  we  are,  as  imperative- 
ly, bound  to  be  governed  by  them. 

The  kind  of  evidence  by  which  the  scriptural 
authority  of  infant  baptism  is  proved,  is  not  what 
many  have  demanded,  and  is  not  what  many  have 
thought  necessary.  But  it  is  such  as  God  has  seen 
fit  to  give,  and  ought,  therefore,  to  be  satisfactory. 
God's  plans  are,  in  many  respects,  different  from 
what  appears  to  us  desirable.  If  he  had  taken  coun- 
sel of  us,  he  would  have  had  to  remodel  his  word 


IMAM'    BAPTISM   0ONCU7MD.  165 

altogether.  But  neither  in  the  kingdoms  of  nature 
or  of  grace,  has  he  taken  our  officious  advise.  In 
both  departments  of  his  agency,  he  has  acted  on 
principles  which  we  can  only  imperfectly  compre- 
hend, and  produced  anomalies  which  we  cannot  ac- 
count for. 

Many  things  enter  into  the  divine  plan  which  we 
would  have  excluded  from  it,  and  many  tilings  are 
left  out  of  it  which  we  would  have  comprehended 
in  it. 

Some  tilings  are  explained  in  the  scriptures,  with 
a  greater  fulness  and  particularity,  than  to  us  appears 
necessary,  other  things  are  proportionably  too  ob- 
scure. Here,  God  has  said  too  much  to  suit  us; 
there,  too  little.  In  the  opinion  of  some,  it  was  in- 
cumbent on  God  to  make  every  thing  to  which  his 
word  appertains,  so  obvious,  that  reasoning  and  inves- 
tigation would  not  be  necesary  to  a  right  understand- 
ing of  it. 

The  most  superficial  interpretations  of  the  scrip- 
tures, are  sure  to  be  adopted  by  such,  as  the  most 
probable ;  and  all  the  results  of  profound  and  pro- 
tracted reasonings,  are  discarded. 

This  assumption  of  the  simplicity  and  obviousness 
of  divine  truth,  is  the  baseless  fabric  of  imagination. 
It  is  true  of  a  part  of  divine  truth,  but  not  of  the 
whole, 

God  has  not  so  constructed  his  word,  as  to  save 
men  the  necessity  of  the  most  profound  and  extend- 
ed investigations  of  which  they  are  capable,  in  the 
interpretation  of  it. 

Why  God  has  not  made  every  important  truth  ob- 
vious, in  the  scriptures;  why  he  has  made  it  neces- 
sary to  ascertain  and  teach  them,  in  many  cases,  by 
means  of  protracted  courses  of  reasoning  and  argu- 


168  INFANT   BAPTISM   CONCLUDED. 

ment,  it  is  not  necessary  to  explain.  Such,  however, 
is  the  fact.  And  the  man  who,  from  indolence  or 
any  cause,  will  not  investigate;  and  he  who,  from 
mental  imbecility,  cannot;  must  both  inevitably  fail 
of  reaching  many  profound  and  interesting,  and 
many  valuable  results,  which  are  fully  reached  by  the 
unprejudiced  and  laborious  interpreter. 

There  is  a  demand  for  profound  and  extensive 
processes  of  reasoning,  in  respect  to  all  the  diversi- 
fied objects  of  human  knowledge.  The  jurist,  the 
legislator,  the  chemist,  the  mathematician,  the  natu- 
ral philosopher  and  the  historian,  must  attain  many 
of  their  most  important  and  most  valuable  results  in 
tliis  way.  The  interpreter  of  nature,  in  this  respect, 
finds  himself  in  circumstances  precisely  similar  to 
those  of  the  interpreter  of  the  scriptures. 

By  means  of  such  demands,  the  human  mind  is 
called  into  exercise,  and  its  higher  powers  essentially 
improved.  Having  invested  man  with  vast  capacities 
for  the  attainment  of  knowledge,  by  extended  pro- 
cesses of  reasoning,  it  is  fit,  that  demands  should  be 
made,  for  the  full  exercise  of  these  capacities;  other- 
wise, they  would  be  undeveloped  and  useless. 

The  fact,  that  no  record  of  the  first  institution  of 
Christian  baptism  is  preserved,  and  that  the  scriptu- 
ral instructions,  respecting  this  ordinance,  consist, 
entirely,  in  allusions  and  references  to  it,  as  already 
well  understood,  both  in  respect  to  its  nature  and  its 
subjects,  accounts  for  the  want  of  direct  evidence  in 
regard  to  the  proper  subjects  of  this  rite.  These 
facts  are  undeniable,  and  deserve  to  be  well  consid- 
ered. 

Scriptural  allusions  and  references  to  Christian 
baptism  made,  not  for  the  direct  purpose  of  explain- 
ing it,  together  with  church  traditions  and  uninspired 


[M'WT   BAPTKM    COOT  l.CDED.  1G7 

testimony,  arc  the  only  sources  of  information  Co  Ufl 
on  mailers  which  may  have  been  settled,  by  the  most 
explicit  unrecorded  instructions  of  our  Lord  and  the 
apostles. 

The  law  respecting  baptism  as  originally  given, 
was  doubtless  clear  and  explicit.  No  questions  seem 
to  have  agitated  the  church  on  this  subject,  during 
the  apostolic  age. 

What  that  law  was,  we  are  left  to  infer  from  sev- 
eral indirect  evidences,  because  the  law  itself  has 
not  been  made  a  matter  of  record  Some  infer, 
that  infants  were,  in  this  law,  included  as  legitimate 
subjects  of  baptism.  Others  infer,  that  baptism 
pertained  only  to  adults. 

Both  opinions  are  matters  of  inference,  not  of  spe- 
cific scriptural  testimony.  Both  are  inferences,  not 
from  any  scriptural  record  of  the  divine  law  relating 
to  baptism,  but  from  incidental  references  to  baptism, 
in  which  it  is  mentioned,  not  for  the  purpose  of  be- 
ing explained,  but  for  the  purpose  of  being  enforced 
and  for  other  purposes 

Hundreds  and  thousands  of  members  of  the  church 
testify,  that  their  early  conversion  was  owing,  directly 
or  indirectly,  to  their  baptism  received  in  infancy. 
Hundreds  and  thousands  of  its  parents  testify  to  the 
effectual  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  turning 
their  hearts  to  their  children,  to  instruct  them  in  the 
doctrines  and  duties  of  Christianity,  by  means  of 
obligations  which  they  acknowledged  and  in  part 
assumed,  when  they  consecrated  their  infant  off- 
spring to  God  in  baptism. 

What  is  the  inference?  Is  not  that  which  God 
blesses,  of  God?  Is  it  not  conformable  to  his  will? 
Docs  not  his  blessing  give  it  his  sanction?  Then, 
infant  church-membership  and  infant  baptism,  are  of 


16S  INFANT   BAPTISM   CONCLUDED. 

God,  for  God's  richest  and  most  signal  blessings  are 
on  them. 

Exclusive  of  the  purpose  of  explanation,  the  ques- 
tion between  the  baptists,  and  other  denominations, 
is  not  a  question  between  a  hypothesis  sustained  by 
direct  evidence,  and  another  hypothesis  sustained  by 
indirect  evidence.  It  is  a  question  between  two 
hypotheses,  both  of  which  depend  upon  indirect 
evidence ;  both  of  which  are  inferred  from  the  scrip- 
tures ;  neither  of  which  is  contained  in  them,  other- 
wise than  as  a  conclusion  is  contained  in  the  premises 
from  which  it  can  be  legitimately  deduced. 

The  conclusion  in  favor  of  the  baptism  of  infants, 
is  inferred  from  several  different  independent  pre- 
mises. If  these  premises  are  correct,  and  the  con- 
clusions legitimately  drawn  from  them,  the  doctrine 
of  infant  baptism  is  fully  sustained.  If  this  is  true 
in  the  case  of  any  one  of  the  foregoing  arguments, 
infant  baptism  is  fully  sustained,  even  if  all  the  other 
arguments  are  shown  to  be  inconclusive. 

The  want  of  direct  evidence  creates  a  necessity 
for  more  extended  and  discriminating  investigations 
than  would  otherwise  be  necessary.  It  also  occa- 
sions, after  the  lapse  of  eighteen  Centuries,  a  liability 
to  error,  which  might  not  otherwise  have  existed 
But  it  does  not  render  the  attainment  of  certain  con- 
clusions impracticable,  neither  does  it  render  errone- 
ous opinions  on  the  subject  inevitable. 

In  the  absence  of  direct  evidence,  we  resort  to 
that  which  is  indirect,  of  which  we  find  a  sufficiency 
for  the  full  establishment  of  affusion  and  sprinkling 
as  the  mode,  and  of  believing  adults  and  their  chil- 
dren as  the  subjects  of  Christian  baptism. 


DUTIES    OF    THE    CHURCH,    ETC.  ICO 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

DUTIES    OF    THE    CHURCH    TO    INFANT 
MEMBERS. 

I.       DUE    RECOGNITION    OF    INFANT    CHURCH-tt£MHER- 
BHEP. 

§  91.  The  doctrine  of  infant  church-membership, 
with  infant  baptism  as  its  seal,  is  a  cardinal  point  in 
the  Christian  system.  It  affects,  essentially  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Christian  church.  The  churches 
which  reject  this  doctrine,  organize  themselves  on  a 
plan  entirely  different  from  that  which  God  has  in- 
stituted. 

The  adoption  of  infant  baptism,  without  a  full  re- 
cognition of  infants  as  being  thereby  introduced  into 
the  church  and  entitled  to  its  care,  is  but  little  better 
than  the  entire  rejection  of  it.  It  is  a  conformity  to 
tne  letter  of  the  divine  law  on  this  subject,  but  a 
violation  of  its  spirit. 

The  conclusion  at  which  we  have  arrived,  in  favor 
of  the  baptism  of  infants,  is  not  a  matter  of  mere 
speculative  interest;  it  is  of  the  greatest  practical 
importance.  The  design  of  God  is,  that  children 
should  participate  equally  with  their  parents  in  the 
blessings  of  church  organization  and  discipline.  He 
claims  as  his  subjects  all  adult  Christians,  and  ex- 
tends to  them  the  benefits  of  his  jurisdiction,  and 
of  the  system  of  moral  and  religious  discipline  which 
he  has  instituted.  He  also  claims  equally  the  chil- 
dren of  the  church,  and  requires  them  to  be  trained 
up  and  instructed  in  all  the  doctrines  and  duties  of 
12 


170  DUTIES   OF  THE  CHURCH 

Christianity.  He  requires  them  to  be  trained  up  not 
merely  to  know,  but  also  to  do  his  will,  and  to  per- 
form the  duties  which  he  has  enjoined  as  constituting 
his  service. 

The  responsibility  of  giving  children  this  training, 
is  devolved,  in  the  first  place,  upon  their  parents,  and 
in  the  second  place,  upon  the  church  to  which  they 
belong. 

The  church  is  as  much  bound  to  provide  for  the 
instruction  and  edification  of  its  infant  members  as 
for  those  of  adults.  It  ought  to'  do  this  by  its  offi- 
cers as  it  performs  other  corporate  duties.  How 
sadly  and  how  criminally  this  church  care  of  children 
is  neglected,  in  the  different  branches  of  the  Presby- 
terian church,  is  well  known !  Children  are  baptized, 
and  then,  so  far  from  receiving  the  church  attention 
due  to  them  as  members  of  that  body,  in  most  cases, 
their  membership  in  the  church  is  never  afterwards 
acknowledged.  If  they  see  fit  to  take  their  places 
among  the  other  members  of  their  respective  con- 
gregations when  they  come  to  be  adults,  they  do  it 
by  profession  not  by  confirmation.  In  this  manner, 
their  church  connection  is  virtually  nullified  imme- 
diately after  it  is  created. 

To  baptize  children  and  then  deny  them  the  privi- 
leges of  church  discipline,  is,  in  some  respects,  more 
criminal  than  not  to  baptize  them  at  all.  By  it,  the 
very  purpose  and  design  of  infant  church-member- 
ship, and  of  infant  baptism,  is,  in  many  cases,  en- 
tirely and  in  others  partially  defeated. 

The  conclusion  in  favor  of  infant  baptism  is  in- 
separably connected  with  the  doctrine  of  the  church- 
membership  of  baptized  children.  If  we  baptize  our 
children,  and  thus  initiate  them  into  the  Christian 
church,  we  are  bound  to  recognize  them  as  church 


TO    INFANT   MEMBERS.  171 

members,  and  extend  to  them  the  benefits  of  church 
discipline. 

This  cmnot  be  done  without  early  instructing  bap- 
tiz  (I  children  in  the  principles  and  ordinances  of 
Christianity,  and  confirming  them,  on  their  own  pro- 
fessions, [0  the  enjoyment  of  churcli  relations  and 
privileges. 

This  is  done  by  the  Episcopal  churcli,  and,  in  doing 
it,  that  churcli  acts  consistently.  Why  is  it  not  done 
by  all  pedo-baptist  churches?  Ought  not  confirmation 
to  be  extended  as  far  as  infant  baptism  extends? 
The  inconsistency  of  practicing  infant  baptism,  with 
no  subsequent  recognition  of  the  church  relations  of 
baptized  children  on  the  part  of  the  church,  is  too 
obvious  to  be  denied.  It  has  done  much  to  prejudice 
the  cause  of  infant  baptism  with  unbelievers,  as  well 
as  to  defeat  its  ends. 

The  most  spiritual  portions  of  the  Episcopal  church 
baptize  their  children,  instruct  and  edify,  and  then 
confirm  them.  Why  should  we  not  do  the  same? 
The  introduction  of  confirmation  would  not  require 
any  depression  of  our  existing  standards  of  qualifi- 
cation for  church-membership.  We  might  examine 
our  candidates  for  confirmation  on  the  state  of  their 
affections  and  dispositions,  as  well  as  on  their  faith 
and  knowledge,  and  receive  only  such  as  should  have 
entered  on  a  course  of  evangelical  obedience. 

We  are  not  at  liberty  to  be  negligent  in  this  mat- 
ter. Church  order  is  of  God's  appointment,  and 
must  be  maintained  and  carried  out  according  to  his 
design.  If  we  will  not  maintain  it,  and  cany  it  out, 
others  will.  God  will  intrust  the  cardinal  interests 
of  his  kingdom  with  such,  and  with  such  only,  as 
shall  prove  themselves  worthy  of  this  trust.  If  we 
decline  to  execute  his  plan,  he  will  take  his  institu- 


172  DUTIES   OF   THE   CHURCH 

tions  ultimately  from  us  and  give  them  to  others. 
Already  has  God  frowned  upon  our  remissness  in  re- 
spect to  the  lambs  of  his  flock.  Many  of  them  have 
been  lost  to  our  denomination.  Many  have  been  lost 
to  the  church  altogether,  whom  a  reasonable  fidelity 
would  have  saved. 

God  will  admit  of  no  substitute.  Sabbath  schools 
have  done  much  for  children.  They  are  good  aux- 
ilaries;  but  they  are  not  an  adequate  substitute  for 
church  discipline.  God  will  never  allow  them  to 
take  the  place  of  the  church. 


n.      CHURCH  DISCIPLINE  OF  INFANT  MEMBERS. 

§92.  1.  This  devolves,  in  the  first  place,  on  the 
parents,  who,  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  stand  as 
sole  sponsors  for  their  children,  in  assuming  the  ob- 
ligations of  the  baptismal  covenant.  It  is  the  duty 
of  parents  to  train  up  their  children  in  the  way  of 
piety,  both  by  religious  instruction  and  government. 
This  training  ought  to  be  commenced  at  the  earliest 
period  in  which  it  is  practicable,  and  ought  to  be 
prosecuted  with  the  utmost  earnestness  till  its  objects 
are  secured. 

2.  If  parents  prove  negligent  and  remiss,  it  is 
incumbent  on  the  church  to  admonish  them,  and  call 
them  to  due  performance  of  their  duty.  If  it  does 
not  succeed  in  this,  it  becomes  its  duty,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, to  supply  the  deficiency  of  parental  instruction 
and  government,  by  means  of  its  officers  and  oilier 
members,  but  especially  by  its  stated  ministry. 

3.  Children,  having  been  duly  instructed  and 
governed,  when  they  arrive  at  years  of  discretion. 
are  entitled  to  be  admitted,  on  a  profession  of  their 


TO    INFANT    MKMItlK-  l?.'l 

iaitli,  to  the  full  enjoyment  of  all  church  privilt  : 
This,  in  the  Episcopal  church,  is  distinguished  from 
tin*  Admission  of  unhaptized  persons,  by  the  title  of 
confirmation.  As  some  distinction  ought  evidently 
to  Ix-  made  between  it  and  the  admission  of  unbap- 
ti/fii  :  and  as  confirmation  answers  the  pur- 

of  making  such  a  distinction,  it  would  be  well 
to  introduce  it  generally  wherever  infant  member- 
ship is  recognized.  The  confirmation  of  infant 
church-members  ought  to  take  place  at  as  early  a 
period  as  the  children  can  be  duly  prepared  for  it. 
Some  may  lie  confirmed  at  twelve  years  of  age; 
others  at  15,  and  others  at  later  periods.  It  ought 
to  be  called  confirmation  in  the  church,  not  admis- 
sion to  it.  By  calling  it  confirmation,  we  recognize 
the  subjects  of  it  as  already  church-members;  by 
calling  it  admission  to  the  church,  we  virtually  deny 
the  previous  membership  of  those  so  admitted,  and 
discard  the  doctrine  in  conformity  with  which  that 
membership  was  constituted. 

4.  If  from  neglect  on  the  part  of  the  parents  or  of 
the  church,  or  from  any  other  cause,  children  on  at- 
taining years  of  full  discretion,  refuse  to  be  confirm- 
ed, and  to  adopt  Christianity  as  a  rule  of  life,  they 
should  be  cut  off  from  the  church  by  the  same  au- 
thority by  which  other  unworthy  members  are  re- 
moved. This  may  be  done  with  more  or  less  for- 
mality as  may  seem  best.  It  ought,  however,  to  be 
done  by  authority,  and  in  an  orderly  manner,  so  as 
to  be  understood  both  by  the  church  from  whose  fel- 
lowship such  persons  are  separated,  and  by  the  per- 
sons themselves. 

These  four  particulars  embrace  the  essential  prin- 
ciples of  the  discipline  of  children  in  the  church  of 
Christ.     They  are  all  legitimate  deductions  from  the 


174  DUTIES   OF   THE   CHURCH 

doctrine  of  infant  church-membership.  If  infanta 
are  admitted  to  the  church  by  baptism,  they  become 
therefore,  church-members,  subject  to  church  disci- 
pline; and  cannot  loso  their  standing  in  the  church, 
unless  deprived  of  it  by  the  due  exercise  of  church 
authority. 


III.      REFORMATION  DEMANDED  IN  RESPECT  TO  CnURCH 
DISCIPLINE  OF  INFANT  MEMBERS. 

$93.  It  was  predicted  by  Malachi,  that  before  the 
advent  of  the  Messiah,  Elijah,  the  prophet,  should  be 
sent  to  turn  the  heart  of  the  fathers  to  their  children, 
and  the  heart  of  the  children  to  their  fathers.  This 
office  was  performed  by  John  the  Baptist.  Matt.  11 : 
14.  Is  not  a  similar  mission  now  necessary  to  se- 
cure to  the  children  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in 
its  different  branches,  that  attention,  and  those  privi- 
leges to  which  they  are  entitled? 

Many  considerations  conspire  to  call  our  attention 
to  the  church  relations  of  children  and  to  the  disci- 
pline which  is  due  to  them  as  church  members. — 
Our  responsibility  to  God  faithfully  to  carry  out 
his  plan  in  regard  to  children;  our  responsibility 
to  our  children  to  do  the  most  we  can  for  their 
early  conversion,  and  for  their  general  conversion; 
our  responsibility  to  the  church  of  which  we  are 
members,  to  make  its  greatest  perfection  and  en- 
largement are  of  this  description.  There  is  a  part  of 
the  gospel  camp  that  we  have  not  sufficiently  fortifi- 
ed. God  has  made  provisions  for  the  salvation  of 
our  children,  but  we  have  not  fully  availed  ourselves 
of  those  gracious  and  abundant  provisions.  Let  us 
awake  to  our  duty.     Let  us  arise  and  build  up  our 


TO    INFANT   mOU  175 

church;  one  of  the  noblest  in  other  respects  that  can 

bo  found;   but  in    this   respect,   weak   and    negligent 

Several  other  denominations  are  before  us  in  atten- 
tion to  their  children)  and  in  a  recognition  of  their 
title  to  church  privileges.  The  Episcopalians  arc  be- 
fore us.  The  more  spiritual  branches  of  that  church 
are  far  before  us  in  this  respect.  Even  the  Roman 
Catholics  exercise  a  wisdom  and  fidelity  in  respect 
to  their  children  which  ought  to  clothe  us  with 
shame  and  humiliation.  Their  children  are  brought 
up  in  the  church  and  for  the  church.  We  claiming 
to  be  wiser  and  purer  than  they,  and  discarding 
many  of  their  traditionary  errors,  have  hitherto  ne- 
glected to  profit  by  their  examples  of  wisdom  and 
fidelity  in  a  matter  which  pertains  to  the  fundamental 
principles  of  church  order  and  prosperity.  There 
must  be  a  reformation  among  us  in  respect  to  that 
part  of  our  organization  and  usages  which  relates  to 
children.  Weakened,  as  we  are,  by  our  deficiency 
in  this  respect,  we  can  never  secure  to  our  religion 
its  proper  ascendency  among  men.  God  will  be 
compelled  to  cast  us  aside,  and  commit  his  work  to 
other  orders,  or  we  shall  be  compelled  to  cany  into 
effect,  and  carry  ouf  that  part  of  the  Divine  plan 
which  relates  to  infant  church-members,  in  conformi- 
ty with  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  New  Testament. 


176  MISCELLANEOUS    TOPICS,   ETC. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

MISCELLANEOUS  TOPICS  RELATING  TO  BAPTISM 

I.       CHRISTIAN  NAMES. 

§94.  Giving  children  names  in  baptism,  has  been 
handed  down  by  tradition  from  ancient  times.  It 
probably  had  its  origin  simultaneously  with  Christian 
baptism  itself.  Such  names  are  called  Christian 
names;  because  they  are  given  at  the  time  of  the 
administration  of  baptism,  and  designed  to  distin- 
guish the  subjects  as  consecrated  to  the  worship  and 
service  of  God. 

None  but  a  baptized  child,  has,  properly  speaking, 
a  Christian  name.  Others  have  names  which  desig- 
nate them  as  individuals;  but  the  names  of  those 
who  are  baptized  in  infancy,  designate  them  not  as 
individuals  only,  but  as  Christians,  as  individuals  con- 
secrated to  the  worship  and  service  of  Christ. 

The  Christian  names  of  persons  baptized  in  infan- 
cy, are  perpetual  mementos  of  their  consecration  to 
God. 

Paul  bore  the  name  of  Saul  till  his  baptism.  His 
Christian  name  was  Paul.  It  does  not  appear,  how- 
ever, that  a  change  of  name  was  considered  neces- 
sary in  cases  of  adult  baptism.  It  was  probably  at 
the  option  of  tire  subject. 


MM  KLLANEOUS    TOPICS,    1  177 


II.       POSITION  PROPER  FOR  RECEIVING   BAPTISM. 

$95.  In  the  case  of  adults,  baptism  may  be  re- 
ceived by  the  subject  cither  standing  or  kneeling. — 
Kneeling,  however,  is  the  most  suitable  posture  for 

receiving  it;  because  it  is  the  most  humble  and  re- 
ap ctful  posture.  Kxamplesof  kneeling  in  religious 
worship,  occur  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
Daniel  knelt  in  his  customary  family  devotions. — 
Dan.  6:  10.  Paul  knelt,  and  prayed  with  his  Ephe- 
sian  brethren  on  the  occasion  of  his  celebrated  vale- 
dictory address,  recorded  Acts  20 :  36.  The  recep- 
tion of  baptism  by  an  adult,  is  the  most  solemn  act 
of  his  life.  If  we  ever  ought  to  kneel,  we  ought  to 
do  it  on  that  occasion. 

Infants  are  most  appropriately  baptized  by  being 
taken  in  the  arms  of  the  officiating  minister.  This 
is  in  conformity  to  the  example  of  Christ,  who  took 
little  children  in  his  arms  and  blessed  them. 


III.       TIMES  AND  FIACES  PROPER   FOR  ADMINISTERING 
BAPTISM. 

}  96.  Infant  baptisms  ought  evidently  to  be  ad- 
ministered at  an  early  period.  In  the  case  of  cir- 
cumcision, the  eighth  day  was  fixed  upon  as  the  ear- 
liest period  practicable  for  the  administration  of  that 
rite.  Reasoning  from  analogy,  we  may  safely  con- 
clude that  infant  baptism  ought  to  be  administered 
at  the  earliest  period  practicable.  We  are  not  limit- 
ed to  the  eighth  day,  but  we  are  restricted  to  the 
earliest  convenient  season.  The  propriety  of  having 
infant  baptisms  administered  at  the  earliest  conveni- 


178  MISCELLANEOUS   TOPICS,   ETC. 

ent  season  is  too  obvious  to  require  comment  or  ar- 
gument. Those  who  defer  having  their  children 
baptized  from  one  convenient  season  to  another;  and 
thus  suffer  months  and  even  years  to  pass  away  in 
the  neglect  of  their  duty  are  guilty  of  culpable  re- 
missness. 

If  it  is  God's  will  that  infant  baptism  should  be 
observed  at  all,  it  must  be  his  will  that  it  should  be 
observed  promptly.  Remissness  and  unnecessary 
delays,  imply  a  low  estimate  of  this  duly;  and  an  im- 
perfect apprehension  of  the  binding  force  of  God's 
laws.  A  due  sense  of  the  binding  force  of  God's 
laws,  will  not  allow  us  to  be  remiss  in  respect  to  any 
duty  which  he  has  enjoined. 

5>  The  proper  place  for  the  administration  of  baptisms 
both  in  the  case  of  infants  and  adults,  is  the  church 
of  God.  If  we  have  no  churches,  our  usual  places 
of  holding  religious  meetings  become  churches,  so 
far  as  the  essential  purposes  of  church  edifices  are 
concerned. 

Baptisms  ought  to  be  administered  in  the  presence 
of  church  congregations,  and  not  in  private,  except 
in  extraordinary  cases;  because  the  entire  congrega- 
tion has  an  interest  in  it.  The  baptized  child  is 
admitted  as  a  church-member,  and  the  church  is  laid 
under  obligations  to  it  as  such.  The  service  ought 
to  be  performed  in  the  presence  of  the  church,  that 
it  may  assume  those  obligations  voluntarily  and  un- 
derstandingly. 


IV.       AMOUNT  OF  WATER  TO  BE  USEB  IN  BAPTISM. 

5  07.     Some  use  water  in  baptism  so  sparingly,  as 
hardly  to  represent  cither  a  washing  or  sprinkling. 


Mlscri.[.\\i:ors  topics,   i:tc.  179 

A  s  ihing  requires  the  free  use  of  water. 

Sprinkling  is  Bo  i  aibleni  probably  derived  from  the 
falling  of  rain,  and  repreB<  nts  the  Spirit  of  God  as 
poured  out  Like  the  ruin  upon  the  baptized  subject 
It  reprV  a  mis  not  only  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit, 
but  the  communication  of  those  gifts  and  graces 
which  the  Spirit  confers,  as  if  they  <l(  scend*  <l  upon 
us  from  on  high.  As  the  rain  washes  the  objects 
which  it  fills  upon,  and  cleanses  them  from  defile- 
ment, so  baptism  represents  the  Spirit  of  God  as  dis- 
tilling upon  us  from  on  high,  to  such  an  extent  as  to 
effect  our  cleansing  from  all  sin,  and  entire  removal 
of  our  guilt.  This  may  be  signified  by  the  use  of 
very  little  water;  but  it  is  much  more  strikingly 
represented  by  using  water  witli  considerable  free- 
dom and  in  considerable  abundance. 

Some  use  a  s:ngle  affusion  or  sprinkling,  and  some 
repeat  these  applications  of  water  three  times.  These 
seem  to  be  sufficient  reasons  for  repeating  them : 

1.  We  are  baptized  to  the  three  persons  of  the 
Trinity. 

2.  The  verb  baptize  is  a  frequentalive  verb,  and, 
as  such,  signifies  not  a  single,  but  a  repeated  applica- 
tion of  water. 


V.       BAPTISMAL    FORMULA. 

$98.  The  formula  for  administering  baptism, 
taken  from  Matt.  28:  19,  is  as  follows: 

"  I  baptize  thee  to  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'" 

To  ought  to  be  used  in  this  formula  instead  of  in, 
for  reasons  already  explained. 


180  MISCELLANEOUS    TOPICS,   ETC. 

In  the  Episcopal  service,  the  parents  and  sponsors 
promise,  in  behalf  of  the  infant  subject  which  they 
present  for  baptism,  three  things;  repentance,  faith, 
and  obedience.  They  also  promise  to  renounce 
Satan  according  to  a  formula  referred  to  by  Tcrtul- 
lian,  as  made  use  of  in  his  day.  This  is  done  in 
answer  to  questions  proposed  by  the  officiating  minis- 
ter, and  is  sustained  by  an  appeal  to  1  Peter  3:  21, 
where  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  implies  that 
candidates  for  baptism  were  questioned  respecting 
their  faith,  and  required  to  return  satisfactory  an- 
swers. 

In  the  case  of  adults,  a  profession  of  faith  is  gen- 
erally insisted  on,  as  an  essential  qualification  for 
baptism.  In  the  case  of  infants,  the  same  thing  is 
required  of  the  sponsors  in  behalf  of  infant  subjects, 
by  the  Episcopal  and  some  other  churches;  but  by 
the  Presbyterian  church  it  is  omitted. 


VI.       HISTORICAL   NOTICES    OF    CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM 
SINCE  THE  DAYS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

$  99.  In  the  third  century,  the  original  modes  of 
baptism  had  been  generally  superseded  by  immer- 
sion. No  account  is  transmitted  to  us  of  the  manner 
and  grounds  of  this  change.  It  is  easily  accounted 
for,  however,  by  the  fact,  that  the  great  body  of  Chris- 
tians who  used  the  Greek  language,  the  language 
in  which  the  New  Testament  was  written,  under- 
stood it  as  used  by  the  classic  writers,  and  not  as  used 
by  the  Jews;  and  that,  interpreted  according  to  clas- 
sic usage,  baptize  meant  to  immerse  or  plunge  in 
water. 


Mi.-rr.u. wmr-  mi  181 

Besides,  it  was  the  disposition  of  the  people  in 

those  times,  as  it  is  more  Of  lesfl  in  all  times,  to  make 

additions  to  the  simple  forms  and  modes  which  God 

has  established.  The  simplicity  of  God's  modes  is 
their  highest  beauty  and  excellence.  Bui  the  great 
mass  of  human  minds  do  not  think  far  enough  to 
perceive   this.      They  therefore   prefer   something 

r  in  amount  or  more  complex  than  what  God 
requires.  The  burden  of  the  Mosaic  ceremonies 
appears  to  us  to  have  been  great;  but  it  was  not  so 
great  that  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  did  not  think 
best  to  make  it  much  greater  by  their  traditions. 

So  the  early  Christians  were  no  sooner  left  to 
themselves  by  the  removal  of  the  Apostles,  than  they 
began  to  make  additions  to  the  simple  rites  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

Contemporaneous  with  immersion,  we  find  anoint- 
ing with  oil,  exorcism  of  evil  spirits,  and  the  Christian 
uniform  made  use  of  on  the  occasion  of  receiving 
baptism.  No  one  can  tell  the  origin  of  these  rites. 
They  came  in  silently  during  the  second  century. 
The  first  that  we  know  of  them  is  that  they  were  in 
use,  and  apparently  in  general  use.  But  they  were 
not  of  apostolic  or  divine  origin.'  The  New  Testa- 
ment knows  nothing  of  them,  and  gives  them  no 
countenance.  Neither  does  it  know  any  thing  of 
immersion  as  a  mode  of  baptism. 

Immersion,  when  once  established,  continued  to 
prevail,  generally,  for  several  hundred  years,  when  af- 
fusion and  sprinkling  were  re-established  in  the 
Roman  Catholic  church.  The  Greek  church  has 
continued  to  adhere  to  immersion  till  the  present 
time.  The  leading  Protestant  sects  withdrew  from  the 
Papal  church,  and  brought  off  sprinkling  and  affusion 
with  them  as  customary  modes  of  baptism. 


182  MISCELLANEOUS   TOPICS,    ETC. 

Infant  baptism  was  generally  practiced  in  all  the 
ancient  branches  of  the  Christian  church.  Peter  de 
Brugs  founded  a  small  sect  in  Languedoc  and  Pro- 
vence, in  1110,  who  denied  the  propriety  of  infant 
baptism.  But  this  sect  never  became  numerous,  and 
its  peculiarity  in  respect  to  baptism  was  not  widely 
disseminated. 

Immediately  after  the  commencement  of  the  Re- 
formation by  Luther,  the  Anabaptists  arose  in  Ger- 
many, who  held  to  immersion  as  the  only  mode,  and 
adult  persons  as  the  only  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 
They  were  organized  under  Munster,  Stubner,  and 
others,  as  a  distinct  faction,  in  1521.  They  were 
highly  fanatical;  discarding  civil  government,  dis- 
tinctions of  rank,  and  the  institution  of  private  pro- 
perty, for  which  they  proposed,  after  the  plan  of  some 
more  recent  innovaters,  a  common  stock. 

After  having  contributed  more  or  less  to  fan  the 
unparalleled  excitement  of  those  times,  and  after 
having  come  on  several  occasions  in  conflict  with  the 
civil  authorities  of  the  countries  which  they  wished 
to  reform,  they  gradually  declined  and  became  ex- 
tinct. Out  of  their  ashes,  however,  arose,  Phoenix 
like,  the  modern  baptists. 

These  abandoned  the  fanaticism  of  the  Anabap- 
tists, and  contended  simply  for  immersion  and  adult 
baptism,  to  the  exclusion  of  infants. 

The  first  particular  Baptist  church  of  the  charac- 
ter of  the  modern  Close  Communion  Baptists,  was 
organized  in  London,  in  1033.  In  1650  these 
churches  began  to  form  associations  and  to  hold 
epistolary  correspondence  with  each  other,  in  dill'  r- 
cnt  countries.  In  1G89,  they  held  a  general  assem- 
bly, in  which  one  hundred  congregations  were  repre- 
sented. 


MISCELLANEOUS    TOPICS,    ETC.  183 

The  first  Baptist  church  in  Scotland  waft  formed 
in  17t>5.  The  leading  peculiarity  of  the  Scotch  Bap- 
tists was  b  plurality  of  pastors  in  each  church.  This, 
however,  has  been  generally  given  up. 

The  Hist  Baptist  church  in  Aim  ilea  was  formed 
by  Roger  Williams,  at  Providence,  Rhode  Island,  in 
1039. 

At  present,  the  Baptist  denomination  is  numerous 
and  respectable  in  this  country  and  in  Great  Britain, 
and  prevails  to  a  limited  extent  in  some  other  coun- 
tries. 

Besides  the  leading  Baptist  denomination,  there 
are  several  minor  sects,  who  concur  with  them  in 
respect  to  baptism,  while  they  deviate  more  or  less 
from  them,  and  from  the  other  orthodox  churches,  in 
other  respects.  The  most  important  of  these  are  the 
Campbellites,  who  claim  the  title  of  Disciples. 

Sprinkling  and  affusion,  and  infant  baptism,  prevail 
throughout  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational 
churches,  the  church  of  England,  the  Episcopal 
church  of  the  United  States,  the  Lutheran  church, 
the  Reformed  churches  of  Germany  and  other  parts 
of  Europe,  the  Methodists,  both  regular  and  reformed, 
and  the  Roman  Catholic  church.  Infant  baptism 
prevails  in  Greek  churches,  and  in  the  other  Eastern 
churches. 

VII.     TRESEIST  ATTITUDE  OF  THE  BAPTISTS. 

§  100.  The  Baptists  have  assumed  an  attitude  of 
confidence  and  determination  in  regard  to  their  pecu- 
liar views,  which  renders  it  highly  necessary  for 
those  who  properly  understand  the  subject,  1o  exert 
themselves  for  the  diffusion  of  scriptural  principles 
on  this  subject.      Their  missionaries  are  translating 


184  MISCELLANEOUS   TOPICS,   ETC. 

the  Bible  into  different  modern  languages,  and  pro- 
mulgating their  views,  by  means  of  these  translations, 
in  different  quarters  of  the  globe. 

They  have  assumed  it  as  an  unquestionable  fact, 
that  the  nations  of  the  earth  must  now  look  to  them, 
and  to  them  alone,  for  faithful  translations  of  the 
word  of  God.  Their  Foreign  and  American  Bible 
Society,  declares  the  versions  of  other  denominations 
to  be  essentially  defective,  and  purposely  to  keep  out 
of  sight  the  real  meaning  of  words.  It  charges  the 
American  Bible  Society  and  the  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society,  with  having  virtually  combined  to  ob- 
scure at  least  a  part  of  divine  revelation;  and  circu- 
late versions  of  the  Bible  which  are  unfaithful,  so 
far  as  the  subject  of  baptism  is  concerned. 

They  also  hold,  (Baptists,)  that  those  who  are  bap- 
tized by  sprinkling  or  affusion  are  unbaptized,  and 
not  to  be  recognized  as  church-members;  and  ex- 
clude all  such  from  the  Lord's  table.  They  thus 
conspire,  both  against  the  truth  on  this  subject,  and 
against  the  unity  and  prosperity  of  the  church  of 
Christ. 

We  are  not  at  liberty  to  suffer  men  to  imbibe  these 
errors,  or  to  remain  in  them,  without  using  every 
practicable  means  of  their  preservation  and  recovery. 

The  immersionist  errors,  are  the  basis  of  one  of 
the  greatest  and  most  injurious  schims  in  the  church, 
that  has  ever  occured.  This  schism  ought  to  be 
healed.  It  can  be  healed.  The  subject  of  baptism 
is  difficult.  Men  cannot  master  it  in  a  moment. 
But  it  is  level  to  the  capacity  of  common  minds, 
provided  the  evidence  is  duly  arranged  and  exhibited. 

We  are  not  at  liberty  to  say,  that  baptism  is  only 
of  minor  importance,  and  that  if  men  arc  only  con- 
verted, it  makes  little  difference  what  opinions  they 


mis<i:i.l\m:oi  s  Turns,  r/rc.  1K> 

embrace  on  this  subject    Those  errors  which  ci 

an  extensive  schism  in  the  church  of  Christ,  are  j»n»- 
ductive  of  more  evil  than  language  can  express. 
Viewed  in  the  mildest  Hght  possible,  the  Baptists 

are  schismatics.  They  divide  the  church  of  Christ. 
They  repel  their  more  correct  brethren  from  the 
Lord's  tattle,  as  unhaptized.  They  claim  not  to  be 
a  branch  of  the  church  of  Christ,  but  to  be  Christ's 
only  church. 

During  the  last  fifty  years,  the  Baptist  cause  has 
gained  a  vast  amount  of  strength.  It  is  strong  now, 
and  becomes  increasingly  so,  by  the  supineness  and 
apathy  of  those  to  whom  a  knowledge  of  the  scrip- 
tural system,  in  respect  to  baptism,  is  committed,  not 
only  that  they  might  enjoy  the  same,  but  that  they 
should  impart  it  to  others. 


CAUSES   OF  THE  SUCCESSFUL  PROPAGATION  OF  BAPTIST 
ERRORS. 

$101.  There  are  several  reasons  for  the  little 
success  which  has  hitherto  attended  the  endeavors  of 
the  church  to  maintain  and  diffuse,  more  generally, 
the  scriptural  doctrines  respecting  baptism.  The 
principal  of  these  are  the  following. 

1.     Apathy  and  indifference  to  the  subject. 

Multitudes  regard  it  as  of  almost  no  consequence. 
They  do  not  even  teach  what  they  know  of  it  to 
their  baptized  children,  still  less  to  their  neighbors. 
When  this  is  the  case,  is  it  strange  that  their  children 
are  easily  misled;  and  that  their  uninstructed  neigh- 
bors, should  be  carried  away  with  the  confident  asser- 
13 


186  MISCELLANEOUS   TOPICS,   ETC. 

tions  and  plausible  reasonings  of  the  Baptists?  This 
is  by  no  means  strange.  It  is  what  ought  to  be  ex- 
pected. It  is  what  ought  to  take  place.  Supineness 
and  apathy  ought  to  suffer  defeat  and  humiliation, 
even  in  a  good  cause. 

2.     Making  undue  concessions. 

Too  much,  a  great  deal  too  much,  has  been  con- 
ceded to  the  Baptists,  and  they  have  availed  them- 
selves, largely,  of  these  inordinate  concessions. 
Their  true  position  is  that  of  schismatics,  dividing 
the  church  and  family  of  Christ.  This,  however,  is 
generally  kept  out  of  view,  in  the  opposition  which 
is  made  to  their  other  errors.  Let  us  embrace  the 
truth.  Then  let  us  make  no  concessions  subversive 
of  it. 

Some  of  the  inordinate  concessions,  made  by  per- 
sons of  other  orders,  to  the  Baptists,  are  the  follow- 
ing: 

1.  That  immersion  is,  probably,  the  scriptural 
mode  of  baptism,  but  that  other  modes  will  answer 
the  same  purpose. 

If  immersion  is,  probably,  the  scriptural  mode  of 
baptism,  let  us  adhere  to  it.  Let  us  not  be  wise 
above  what  is  written,  or  suppose  that  we  can  im- 
prove upon  the  methods  adopted  by  divine  wisdom. 

2.     That  immersion,  though  not  the  scriptural  mode 

of  Baptism,  is  nearly  as  good  as  that,  which 

is  scriptural. 

The  unity  of  the  church  is  essential  to  its  honor, 
peace  and  efficiency.  In  order  to  unity,  there  must 
be  agreement,  as  far  as  practicable,  both  in  modes  of 
worship,  and  in  doctrinal  opinions.     There  must. 


.MIS(  -IlLLAM-iil-s    T()!'I('<.    BUD.  I8fl 

especially,  ho  agreemeal  in  all  those  modes  which 

arc  deemed  fundamental,  whether  they  are  so  or  not 

Immersion  is  deemed  fundamental  hy  the  Baptists. 

Hence,  they  regard  and  treat  all  the  rest  of  Christen- 
dom as  onbaptized,  and  as  apostates  from  this  essen- 
tial pait  of  Christianity.  In  every  point  of  view. 
therefore,  the  Baptist  errors  are  injurious.  They  are 
a  departure  from  truth,  and  the  basis  of  an  cxtee 
schism  in  the  church. 

3.     That  there  is  no  great  harm  in  neglecting  Infant 
Baptism. 

If  infant  baptism  is  not  of  Divine  authority,  it 
ought  not  to  be  persisted  in.  If  it  is  of  Divine  au- 
thority, it  ought  by  no  means  to  be  neglected  or 
lightly  esteemed.  The  feature  of  the  Divine  econ- 
omy, however,  on  which  infant  baptism  is  engrafted, 
is  one  of  the  most  interesting  which  it  possesses. — 
Infant  baptism  is  a  seal  of  grace  bestowed  on  the 
children  of  the  saints  through  the  use  of  appropriate 
means  by  their  parents  and  guardians.  This  was  a 
principle  of  the  Patriarchal  and  Mosaic  dispensations. 
It  is  equally  a  principle  of  the  Christian  dispensation. 
Grace  is  bestowed  on  the  children  of  the  saints. — 
From  them  the  ranks  of  the  church  are  usually  filled. 
They  constitute  a  large  proportion  of  those  who  are 
converted  early  in  life  to  the  Saviour.  The  children 
of  the  church  are  its  hope  for  the  future  existence 
and  prosperity  of  the  Christian  religion  among  men. 
They  are  its  hope  for  the  conversion  of  the  entire 
world. 

But  in  order  to  secure  the  grace  of  God  for  them, 
we  must  devote  them  to  him  in  baptism.  If  we  ne- 
glect this,  we  forfeit  the  blessing.     If  we  neglect  it 


188  MISCELLANEOUS   TOPICS,   ETC. 

wilfully,  the  forfeiture  will  be  likely  to  be  taken  at 
our  hands,  and  the  grace  which  is  the  source  of  un- 
numbered benefits  in  this  world,  and  which  brings 
eternal  life  in  its  train,  will  be  likely  to  be  withheld 
forever.  The  ordinances  of  religion  are  not  to  be 
trilled  with.  They  are  appointed  as  so  many  chan- 
nels for  the  conveyance  of  spiritual  blessings.  By 
attending  upon  them,  we  put  ourselves,  and  in  the 
case  of  infant  baptism,  put  our  children  in  the  way 
of  receiving  inestimable  benefits  not  to  be  obtained 
by  any  other  means. 


